Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Noony vs Furry, an invitation to PROBLEM SOLVING.

Now, both of you have had me blast both of you. I will NOT post in this thread and consider it ONE ON ONE. I may start another peanut gallery thread. But this one is between the two of you.

But keep this in mind. I hear constantly in the news how both sides want peace. And I am sure there are PLENTY in both camps who do.

However, it seems that it is a peace based on all or nothing and the submission of the other.

My postulation TO BOTH SIDES, is that neither wants to budge because of history of tradition and RELIGION.

"Just follow me" seems to be what the other side says will solve all the problems, which WONT happen.

So how DO each of you think this problem can be solved without the baggage of the past? Neither side can undo what has been done. Neither can get rid of the other.

I would like to think BOTH of you know ultimately no matter how much each side in this conflict disagrees, that ultimately we are still dealing with humans.

So without HE SAID SHE SAID, and with out "MINE" or "THEY STARTED IT"

What would each of you do if you could have the power to end this conflict right now?

I want each of you to talk as humans, not labels. As if BOTH of you were trying to arbitrate a fight between co-workers or friends or family members.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

As I have said it was theft under color of law as there was no way to be not absent. Attempts not to be absent resulted in death of the owner.

Land ownership laws are just based on mutual agreement. If you go back far enough in history, the first people on any piece of land just settled it because they wanted to. I believe this is what Brian is trying to tell you. And yes, I do think it is horrible to force someone off a piece of land they've been living on just because someone else wants it, and then to kill him or her if he or she ever tries to go back. Almost every genocide is preceded by forcing a group to publicly identifiable and taking away their right to own guns.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If we are to talk rationally about the subject we have to assume mature adults were making things happen. Adults would know Palestinians would never accede to the Jews back when they started arriving in the 1890s. They had to have known that even if they succeeded the best they could look forward to was living under constant threat of being thrown out just as they do today. There is no credible way to suggest that the way they live today is how they chose to live because adults could foresee how it is today.

They chose to go there. They were adults. They knew it would be like it is.

Any other conclusion assumes every Jew who went there was an innocent, immature child who did not understand anything about how the world works.

That is not reasonable.

That would only work if the only Jews in Israel were the ones that came over in 1890. When the next generation of Jews is born they are all innocent, immature children. Furthermore, their parents may not have told them that it was reasonable for the Palestinians to not want to leave the land that they (the Palestinians) had been living on. Allow this to continue for another generation or two, and many of the Jews living may have been taught that it is the Palestinians who are being unreasonable for not giving up their land.

Furthermore, people aren't always rational and mature in their decision-making. It would be safe to assume that some are, but it would be foolish to assume that all are.

Even more importantly, I haven't read where either you or furry have posted any sort of proposal for dealing with the problem (please correct me if I'm wrong, I could easily have missed something, this thread is kind of confusing). All I've seen is arguing over whose fault it is. Both me and Brian are interested in ways to solve the problem, not in establishing whose fault the problem is.

I am not very knowledgeable about this problem, but I believe that you and furry are. That is why I want to hear your ideas on how to solve the problem. Seriously, I really do. I like learning and one of the best ways to learn is to talk with people who are very knowledgeable on that particular subject.

You already post a lot. I would be quite content if you would just change the content of your posts, rather the frequency. Seriously, I'm not asking for more of your time, just that you alter the way you spend the time you already devote to posting here.

Also, the Seven Laws of Noah, as taken from the wikipedia page of the same name:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry.

2. Prohibition of Murder.

3. Prohibition of Theft.

4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality.

5. Prohibition of Blasphemy.

6. Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while its still alive.

7. Establishment of courts of law.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'd just like to know which of those religious laws you plan to break.

1. People are superior to god.

4. I plan on having sex before marriage if my (future) girlfriend so desires (though I'm not sure if this is considered adultery). I plan on having sex with my (future) girlfriend during her period without undergoing the ritual cleansing if she so desires.

5. I plan on "blaspheming the name of the Lord" whenever I so desire, by the way if the Old Testament and the Torah are the same, they say I have to be killed if I do this

Based on a cursory glance, Jewish laws and punishments don't seem very enlightened to me at all.

As I have said it was theft under color of law as there was no way to be not absent. Attempts not to be absent resulted in death of the owner.

Land ownership laws are just based on mutual agreement. If you go back far enough in history, the first people on any piece of land just settled it because they wanted to. I believe this is what Brian is trying to tell you. And yes, I do think it is horrible to force someone off a piece of land they've been living on just because someone else wants it, and then to kill him or her if he or she ever tries to go back. Almost every genocide is preceded by forcing a group to publicly identifiable and taking away their right to own guns.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If we are to talk rationally about the subject we have to assume mature adults were making things happen. Adults would know Palestinians would never accede to the Jews back when they started arriving in the 1890s. They had to have known that even if they succeeded the best they could look forward to was living under constant threat of being thrown out just as they do today. There is no credible way to suggest that the way they live today is how they chose to live because adults could foresee how it is today.

They chose to go there. They were adults. They knew it would be like it is.

Any other conclusion assumes every Jew who went there was an innocent, immature child who did not understand anything about how the world works.

That is not reasonable.

That would only work if the only Jews in Israel were the ones that came over in 1890. When the next generation of Jews is born they are all innocent, immature children. Furthermore, their parents may not have told them that it was reasonable for the Palestinians to not want to leave the land that they (the Palestinians) had been living on. Allow this to continue for another generation or two, and many of the Jews living may have been taught that it is the Palestinians who are being unreasonable for not giving up their land.

Furthermore, people aren't always rational and mature in their decision-making. It would be safe to assume that some are, but it would be foolish to assume that all are.

Even more importantly, I haven't read where either you or furry have posted any sort of proposal for dealing with the problem (please correct me if I'm wrong, I could easily have missed something, this thread is kind of confusing). All I've seen is arguing over whose fault it is. Both me and Brian are interested in ways to solve the problem, not in establishing whose fault the problem is.

I am not very knowledgeable about this problem, but I believe that you and furry are. That is why I want to hear your ideas on how to solve the problem. Seriously, I really do. I like learning and one of the best ways to learn is to talk with people who are very knowledgeable on that particular subject.

Both Noony and Furry can draw on a wealth of information to point to "I was here first". And as long as another Palestinian or Jew dies it simply amounts to the same old bullshit to me. It still amounts to clinging to the past and ignoring the adult bullshit that they sell to their youth and to the world. It is no different to me that to fat chicks arguing over a toothless fat guy on Jerry Springer.

"I am Palestinian so therefor I invented pain and suffering"

"I am a Jew so I invented pain and suffering"

BULLSHIT

Until humanity even outside this conflict, sees individuals as such, crap like this will not stop.

Neither of them would be willing, if they were in the same room with an unarmed "enemy" would be willing to blow the brains out of an unarmed person.

Noony would not shoot Furry right now if she were face to face and she was unarmed. She would not shoot him if he was face to face and he was unarmed. If either would admit that right now in response to this post, whom ever would do that to me, IS A PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT

So if neither would do that, and I would hope no human would do that, then what are we left with as humans?

JUST THAT, we ARE humans, and when faced with harming unarmed people, most sane humans would not do that. Which says to me, and proves to me, both of them are needlessly stuck on labels, tradition, and pathetic blind loyalty.

Why Noony is blind is the same reason Furry is blind, they allow labels and tradition and boarders to blind them to the fact that NEITHER would want to be harmed if unarmed.

But just like a Shark hunting a seal, when you sneak up on it, you are doing such to avoid harm to yourself. It avoids looking in the mirror.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

As I have said it was theft under color of law as there was no way to be not absent. Attempts not to be absent resulted in death of the owner.

Land ownership laws are just based on mutual agreement. If you go back far enough in history, the first people on any piece of land just settled it because they wanted to. I believe this is what Brian is trying to tell you. And yes, I do think it is horrible to force someone off a piece of land they've been living on just because someone else wants it, and then to kill him or her if he or she ever tries to go back. Almost every genocide is preceded by forcing a group to publicly identifiable and taking away their right to own guns.

Early in the history of the Zionist movement the policy was to NEVER force anyone off land they were working, and the land we were buying was neither arable nor habitable -- it was, by and large, malarial swamps or desert.

After 1948, there were two types of displaced people -- the first were people who left the country or otherwise sided with the Arabs. They've been kept out, rightly so, because they pose a threat to the state. The second were people who were trapped inside Israel during the war and weren't perceived to be a military threat. They were treated with varying degrees of niceness and meanness, including curfews and restrictions on their movements, but most of that has changed and progress continues to be made through the Israeli court system.

Stories about Israeli "abuse" of Palestinian Arabs falls into three broad categories --

False -- For example, there really are Arab Israelis who have mosques, schools, jobs, houses, etc. They can't buy land because most of the land in Israel is leased, not bought, and that applies to both Jews and Arabs.

True -- Fore example, there are people who've been kept out of Israel, and G-d willing will never be allowed back in Israel. In other cases, they were living in homes that were taken from Jews, and this is very evident in the Old City where certain Jewish cultural practices meant it was obvious which homes were owned by Jews.

Make believe -- For example, there are a lot of families that have "keys" which they claim belong to some house they had that was taken from them. These keys seem to keep multiplying with members of the Palestinian diaspora far outnumbering the 450,000 or so =total= refugees. That's people, not households, and that was the UN figure. The Israeli figure, based on census date was a bit higher. The Palestinian figure exceeds total Arab population (about 800,000 Palestinian Arabs in 1947). This completely ignores that many Palestinian Arabs fled believing they'd get to come back and take the property of Jews, but it makes a nice story.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Seriously, go fuck yourself. And let me impart a tad of cultural understanding in that statement. When someone says that, it is supposed to be understood that you should depart from our general vicinity and go play with yourself.

But you're dumb ass that doesn't grasp that, so you just sit there like a retard, with no one telling you different.

You get so rude when challenged. You defend Jews who are nothing but a religion. It is the only religion you defend.

They were treated with varying degrees of niceness and meanness, including curfews and restrictions on their movements, but most of that has changed and progress continues to be made through the Israeli court system.

Thank you for saying that the Israeli government is actually capable of wrongdoing. Thank you, also, for saying that it did, and does, treat some people as inferior to others.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

the first were people who left the country or otherwise sided with the Arabs. They've been kept out, rightly so, because they pose a threat to the state.

How in the world does someone who leaves a country and then wants to come back "pose a threat to the state". I'm honestly really confused.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The second were people who were trapped inside Israel during the war and weren't perceived to be a military threat.

While I'm certain there were people living in Israel who were planning to harm others (terrorists), governments tend to take the "military threat" definition too broadly. For example, I imagine a very similar argument was used by the United States government when they forced Japanese-Americans into camps during WWII.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

For example, there really are Arab Israelis who have mosques, schools, jobs, houses, etc. They can't buy land because most of the land in Israel is leased, not bought, and that applies to both Jews and Arabs.

I don't deny that. But there also really are Arab Israelis who have been treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Early in the history of the Zionist movement the policy was to NEVER force anyone off land they were working

Did this policy change later on in the Zionist movement?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This completely ignores that many Palestinian Arabs fled believing they'd get to come back and take the property of Jews, but it makes a nice story.

I'm not so sure that fleeing a country, not selling the land you owned in that country, and then coming back and wanting that land is so unreasonable. After all, if you didn't sell it, it's still kinda your property. I suppose a government could make the somewhat reasonable argument that the scarcity of living space justifies taking land that people own but are not living on. But even if said government paid you reasonably for it, you didn't exactly have much of a choice...

They were treated with varying degrees of niceness and meanness, including curfews and restrictions on their movements, but most of that has changed and progress continues to be made through the Israeli court system.

Thank you for saying that the Israeli government is actually capable of wrongdoing. Thank you, also, for saying that it did, and does, treat some people as inferior to others.

Lying is a sin in Judaism. It isn't in Islam, but it most definitely is in Judaism.

Things have dramatically improved since 1948, which is what I was referring to. Today there are Arabs in the Knesset, for example, and many Israeli-Arab dominated towns have Israeli-Arabs for politicians. Most Arab countries have long since murdered or expelled their Jewish citizens and I don't know of any Arab nation which has a Jew in a political office. One town in Iraq made the news a few years back because there were no longer enough Jews to form a "minyan", which requires 10 men over age 13.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

the first were people who left the country or otherwise sided with the Arabs. They've been kept out, rightly so, because they pose a threat to the state.

How in the world does someone who leaves a country and then wants to come back "pose a threat to the state". I'm honestly really confused.

If they were allowed back IN they'd pose a threat. There really were Palestinian Arabs who aided the invading Arab armies during the 1948 war.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The second were people who were trapped inside Israel during the war and weren't perceived to be a military threat.

While I'm certain there were people living in Israel who were planning to harm others (terrorists), governments tend to take the "military threat" definition too broadly. For example, I imagine a very similar argument was used by the United States government when they forced Japanese-Americans into camps during WWII.

Israel made formal statements that they wanted the Arabs who were on the "Israel" side of the new border to stay and prosper with the new State. And these weren't "terrorists" in 1948 -- they were people who were taking military "orders" ("orders" is the wrong word, but I'd like to make dinner as I skipped lunch ...) from the invading Arab armies. While there were =some= Japanese during WWII who engaged in espionage or sabotage for the benefit of Japan, most Japanese-Americans were Americans first didn't support Japanese militarism. There really is that big a difference.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

For example, there really are Arab Israelis who have mosques, schools, jobs, houses, etc. They can't buy land because most of the land in Israel is leased, not bought, and that applies to both Jews and Arabs.

I don't deny that. But there also really are Arab Israelis who have been treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government.

Right, and there are JEWS who are treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government. As a minority, Israeli-Arabs are treated about as poorly as the rest of the minorities in Israel, and that includes minorities who are very much Jewish. It's a not a perfect country, but Israeli-Arabs have far more rights =inside= Israel than they'd have in the neighboring Arab states, and infinitely more rights than Jews would have in those states.

To give you an idea -- 6 or 8 years back I was asked about travel to the Middle East on business. I had to point out to the person asking about my ability to travel that I was Jewish and might not even be allowed in, and if I =was= allowed in, I wouldn't feel safe.

Keep that set of factoids in mind when attacking Israel, how about?

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Early in the history of the Zionist movement the policy was to NEVER force anyone off land they were working

Did this policy change later on in the Zionist movement?

With very, very few exceptions were non-collaborating Arabs forced off their land if they were resident land-owners. The majority of the land taken under the Absentee laws was owned by Arabs who supported the invading Arab armies.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

This completely ignores that many Palestinian Arabs fled believing they'd get to come back and take the property of Jews, but it makes a nice story.

I'm not so sure that fleeing a country, not selling the land you owned in that country, and then coming back and wanting that land is so unreasonable. After all, if you didn't sell it, it's still kinda your property. I suppose a government could make the somewhat reasonable argument that the scarcity of living space justifies taking land that people own but are not living on. But even if said government paid you reasonably for it, you didn't exactly have much of a choice...

People who =fled= did so primarily at the direction of the Arab leaders of the same nations that were waging war on Israel. As such, in my opinion the land should be considered forfeit.

But what I was referring to were the promises those Arab leaders made to the Palestinian Arabs they were asking to leave -- they promised that the "Zionists" were going to be forced into the sea and Jewish property would be given to them as war booty. Not that they were going to get land that Israel confiscated from Arabs -- they were promised Jewish property in exchange for aiding the advancing Arab armies.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

they were people who were taking military "orders" ("orders" is the wrong word, but I'd like to make dinner as I skipped lunch ...) from the invading Arab armies

Ok, that is a pretty big difference. If their actions were endangering the lives of those who were living in Israel, then the Israeli government certainly has justification for imprisoning them.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Right, and there are JEWS who are treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government. As a minority, Israeli-Arabs are treated about as poorly as the rest of the minorities in Israel, and that includes minorities who are very much Jewish. It's a not a perfect country, but Israeli-Arabs have far more rights =inside= Israel than they'd have in the neighboring Arab states, and infinitely more rights than Jews would have in those states.

To give you an idea -- 6 or 8 years back I was asked about travel to the Middle East on business. I had to point out to the person asking about my ability to travel that I was Jewish and might not even be allowed in, and if I =was= allowed in, I wouldn't feel safe.

Keep that set of factoids in mind when attacking Israel, how about?

You've just given me even more reason to attack Israel... However, by "Israel" I mean the current Israeli government; not necessarily the individuals living within the nation. I'm assuming then that you want the Israeli government to change and stop treating anyone as second-class citizens--especially Jews. Is that correct?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Things have dramatically improved since 1948, which is what I was referring to. Today there are Arabs in the Knesset, for example, and many Israeli-Arab dominated towns have Israeli-Arabs for politicians. Most Arab countries have long since murdered or expelled their Jewish citizens and I don't know of any Arab nation which has a Jew in a political office.

I am very glad that the Israeli government is much better at protecting people's rights than the governments of the neighboring Arab states. However, the fact that it is so much better does not justify ignoring the problems that it does have. I imagine we agree on this.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But what I was referring to were the promises those Arab leaders made to the Palestinian Arabs they were asking to leave -- they promised that the "Zionists" were going to be forced into the sea and Jewish property would be given to them as war booty. Not that they were going to get land that Israel confiscated from Arabs -- they were promised Jewish property in exchange for aiding the advancing Arab armies.

Ok, now I understand. Wait, but what if there were good reason to think that the Jewish property they were being promised was the land that Israel had taken from Arabs? Not that that justifies invasion; I think that if we have problems with each other we should discuss them--not attack each other. I imagine we also agree on this.

Seriously, go fuck yourself. And let me impart a tad of cultural understanding in that statement. When someone says that, it is supposed to be understood that you should depart from our general vicinity and go play with yourself.

But you're dumb ass that doesn't grasp that, so you just sit there like a retard, with no one telling you different.

You get so rude when challenged. You defend Jews who are nothing but a religion. It is the only religion you defend.

A_Nony_Mouse...

It seems to be the only religion you attack.

Everyone else gives it a miss.

And that is how this whole thing got started. And that is how I came to be banned the first time. Has that been forgotten? I certainly have not forgotten it.

After returning it lead to ceaseless rounds of "why do you attack Judaism?" which bordered upon the "how dare you!" tone. The claim Judaism was harmless lead to the observation that people should not be judged by what they do out of power but by what they do when in power. And that lead to Israel.

You may also recall from the beginning I have been trying to get a straight answer as to why there has to be special justification to attack only that religion. As you can read currently I am still not getting a straight answer. All of my suggestions as to why have been ignored completely. Would you or anyone else reading this care to explain why?

[Now lets follow the replies to this post trying to shift the discussion away from anything that remotely sounds like an answer to that question.]

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

After carefully looking at the majority of the posts in this thread, most of them by Nony, I can only have the following expression:

Buf if you fucked with your big head it would be full of brain.

Think about it.

Nice picture, exactly what I think when either side pulls the "poor me" crap on a planet of 7 billion.

In group

Out group

Virtue of the oppressed

The only thing I see that do

Is leave humanity in a mess.

You two can fight over your sandbox and piss all over each other if you want.

You are just as fucking dense as she is in picking an arbitrary point in history and saying "MINE MINE MINE ME ME ME ME ME"

Nothing lasts forever and all our species has is now, not the past. You two can continue advocating violence towards each other over labels, boarders, call it secular or religious, call it tradition, call it noble, call it loyalty to your own, whatever. All I see is humans killing humans.

Keep flinging your poo at each other. Both of you suffer the stupid blind loyalty crap.

Human nature is what it is. Singing "we are the world" is not going to change it.

Perhaps you missed it but I pointed out I have started from the oldest time in history with the 5th c. BC and with the facts as they are this day and the result is the same. I thought I asked you when you would start and noted no response. If I did not, consider the question asked.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Please tell me what exactly what those evils are and why they are "evil". Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war as you will recall.

I said "may have asked" for a reason. I didn't think you had actually asked her to. In addition, my point was that people on both sides have done bad things.

For example? I realize the Jews went there in the first place. What has the other side done but resist?

Quote:

If indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war, then it is legitimate for both sides.

Quite true. So the Jews should stop whining about being on the receiving end. Right? Do you not get tired of the constant "poor us" and their fictional thousands of years of "suffering" being dropped into every mention of the subjec?

Quote:

War ruins countries, tears apart families, and destroys people's lives. I consider those things to be "evil". However, I probably shouldn't have used the word "evil"; it is not specific enough.

Quite true. Evil is an abstract noun. It does not exist save in religious ravings.

Perhaps you missed it but my objection to Israel is limited to US support and preservation of it. It not only wastes tax money but is contrary to US interests in the world and has serious consequences. Even the 9/11 Commission report identified US support of Israel as a contributing cause.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Please tell me what exactly what those evils are and why they are "evil". Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war as you will recall.

I said "may have asked" for a reason. I didn't think you had actually asked her to. In addition, my point was that people on both sides have done bad things.

If indiscriminate bombing of civilians is legitimate in war, then it is legitimate for both sides.

War ruins countries, tears apart families, and destroys people's lives. I consider those things to be "evil". However, I probably shouldn't have used the word "evil"; it is not specific enough.

BINGO again.

Noony has no problem with supporting blowing up buses that kill unarmed people, just like Furry has no problem supporting Israeli Jets bombing unarmed schools.

And as long as both sides teach their young that killing the enemy is a good thing, and ignore the fact that kids cannot understand adult beefs, they will each continue murder and call it noble.

As long as humans seek power through force, our common suffering will be lost on the unfortunate downside of our evolution in striving to be the alpha male at all costs, even at the cost of the innocent.

To remind you also, my objection is based upon the US keeping that shitty, little country in existence. Please try to remember that.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

As I have said it was theft under color of law as there was no way to be not absent. Attempts not to be absent resulted in death of the owner.

Land ownership laws are just based on mutual agreement.

Then there is no law involved here as mutual agreement is absent. Every other word on the subject is distraction from the fact of theft. Why all the extra words when they are only a distraction from the fact? I expect thieves to be justifying theft but why are you jumping in?

Quote:

If you go back far enough in history, the first people on any piece of land just settled it because they wanted to. I believe this is what Brian is trying to tell you. And yes, I do think it is horrible to force someone off a piece of land they've been living on just because someone else wants it, and then to kill him or her if he or she ever tries to go back. Almost every genocide is preceded by forcing a group to publicly identifiable and taking away their right to own guns.

None of which has anything to do with the fact of theft of private property which began in 1949. It continues to this day. They are still siezing land in Jerusalem from owners who it will not permit to return to reclaim it. When abandonment is forced by the beneficiary of the law it is clearly theft.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If we are to talk rationally about the subject we have to assume mature adults were making things happen. Adults would know Palestinians would never accede to the Jews back when they started arriving in the 1890s. They had to have known that even if they succeeded the best they could look forward to was living under constant threat of being thrown out just as they do today. There is no credible way to suggest that the way they live today is how they chose to live because adults could foresee how it is today.

They chose to go there. They were adults. They knew it would be like it is.

Any other conclusion assumes every Jew who went there was an innocent, immature child who did not understand anything about how the world works.

That is not reasonable.

That would only work if the only Jews in Israel were the ones that came over in 1890. When the next generation of Jews is born they are all innocent, immature children.

If I remember correctly the fraction of born there Jews only passed 50% in the last decade. Those born there can curse their parents. Most European countries allow third generation to return no questions asked so they can leave at any time.

Quote:

Furthermore, their parents may not have told them that it was reasonable for the Palestinians to not want to leave the land that they (the Palestinians) had been living on. Allow this to continue for another generation or two, and many of the Jews living may have been taught that it is the Palestinians who are being unreasonable for not giving up their land.

Anyone not old enough to see through that nonsense is also not an adult. What happens to children is solely the responsibility of their parents. If their kids get hurt because of the conflict it is because their parents choose to live there. Any adult choosing to live in ignorance has no one to blame but themself.

Quote:

Furthermore, people aren't always rational and mature in their decision-making. It would be safe to assume that some are, but it would be foolish to assume that all are.

Agreed. How does that require the US to keep their collective ass afloat?

Quote:

Even more importantly, I haven't read where either you or furry have posted any sort of proposal for dealing with the problem (please correct me if I'm wrong, I could easily have missed something, this thread is kind of confusing). All I've seen is arguing over whose fault it is. Both me and Brian are interested in ways to solve the problem, not in establishing whose fault the problem is.

I posted the solution many years ago. End all US support in any form. Criminalize supporting war criminals. Bring Israel before the ICC for its crimes. If it has a valid defense it can tell it to the judge. Do that and it won't take long for Jews to abandon the country and those who remain to make peace.

Of course the owners get their land back. The current owners can sue whoever sold it to them. Their legal problems do not impinge the rights of the original owners.

Quote:

I am not very knowledgeable about this problem, but I believe that you and furry are. That is why I want to hear your ideas on how to solve the problem. Seriously, I really do. I like learning and one of the best ways to learn is to talk with people who are very knowledgeable on that particular subject.

Do you see any problems with what I suggested? If Israel refuses the world simply boycotts the country. Cut off the oil and the lights go out in a week. They will agree soon afterwards. It is really very simple.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

You already post a lot. I would be quite content if you would just change the content of your posts, rather the frequency. Seriously, I'm not asking for more of your time, just that you alter the way you spend the time you already devote to posting here.

Also, the Seven Laws of Noah, as taken from the wikipedia page of the same name:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry.

Just in case you are interested that is a deliberate misrepresentation. It does in fact say graven or carved stones. Which sounds like a silly distinction until you realize folks in that part of the world used uncarved stones to represent their gods. It is described in many ancient sources. The short time Roman emperor Galibelus brought his god, a stone, to Rome and performed his transvestite worship ceremonies to the amusement of the polite society, likely contributing to his short rule. Even the Koran describes the tribes bringing their stones to Mecca and still today the stone in the Qab is venerated. The Dome of the Rock really has an exposed rock in it, probably once represented Astarte to the Judeans.

In other words it is not against idolatry. It is against the practice of those west of the middle east of carving stones into images of gods. As long as you don't carve it you can worship it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Make believe -- For example, there are a lot of families that have "keys" which they claim belong to some house they had that was taken from them. These keys seem to keep multiplying with members of the Palestinian diaspora far outnumbering the 450,000 or so =total= refugees. That's people, not households, and that was the UN figure. The Israeli figure, based on census date was a bit higher. The Palestinian figure exceeds total Arab population (about 800,000 Palestinian Arabs in 1947). This completely ignores that many Palestinian Arabs fled believing they'd get to come back and take the property of Jews, but it makes a nice story.

Does anyone really believe the keys have been counted? HEH! FURRY! Who counted them and what was the total? Where is it published?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

You've just given me even more reason to attack Israel... However, by "Israel" I mean the current Israeli government; not necessarily the individuals living within the nation. I'm assuming then that you want the Israeli government to change and stop treating anyone as second-class citizens--especially Jews. Is that correct?

Israel is a democracy. The people are the government. On what basis will you make a distinction?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Then there is no law involved here as mutual agreement is absent. Every other word on the subject is distraction from the fact of theft. Why all the extra words when they are only a distraction from the fact? I expect thieves to be justifying theft but why are you jumping in?

I was getting very frustrated with all the "original owner" stuff. The biggest problem I see is if someone is living on a piece of land they bought but didn't know was stolen and the one who it was stolen from comes and wants it back. That's just a really shitty problem right there. However, your proposal of the buyer suing the seller for compensation seems very reasonable.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Most European countries allow third generation to return no questions asked so they can leave at any time.

That's pretty handy. I mean, if I lived in Israel I would want to leave as soon as possible. I imagine the place feels like a war zone. Well, in some areas, it actually is a war zone...

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I posted the solution many years ago. End all US support in any form. Criminalize supporting war criminals. Bring Israel before the ICC for its crimes. If it has a valid defense it can tell it to the judge. Do that and it won't take long for Jews to abandon the country and those who remain to make peace.

Of course the owners get their land back. The current owners can sue whoever sold it to them. Their legal problems do not impinge the rights of the original owners.

Oh, well, I generally don't support military intervention anywhere. I also generally don't support government alliances or foreign aid from one government to another. The problem is that not everyone under a government agrees on who to be allies with and who to help. Plus, tax money often goes towards things that the person paying it doesn't even support. For example, any taxpayer in the US who though invading Iraq was a bad idea still had to fund it through their taxes...

I definitely agree with stopping US support. However, if some person/business in the US wants to trade with some person/business in Israel, I do not think it should be prohibited. If individuals in the US want to send money to support Israel I do not think it should be prohibited. The rest of your argument seems to make sense, but I am kind of leery of supporting it. It is difficult for me to trust what either you or furry have to say on the subject. I'll have to look it up myself (which I really should do anyway).

Both your furry's statements seem too dismissive of the other side, but I really don't know...

The reason this (being dismissive of the other side) concerns me is that whenever I see or hear any person/group dismissing the rights of any another person/group as not worth consideration, I become very sad and afraid: classifying someone or some group as inferior is often used as a justification for violence against said person or group.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The claim Judaism was harmless lead to the observation that people should not be judged by what they do out of power but by what they do when in power. And that lead to Israel.

You may also recall from the beginning I have been trying to get a straight answer as to why there has to be special justification to attack only that religion. As you can read currently I am still not getting a straight answer. All of my suggestions as to why have been ignored completely. Would you or anyone else reading this care to explain why?

I don't think it needs special justification, it's just that most atheists on this board don't focus their attacks on any specific religion (at least not from what I've read). Perhaps they're just confused and/or curious as to why you focus on only one religion. They make think Judaism is not worth the effort to single out since Jews make up such a small percentage of believers. Or, they may just automatically assume that attacking Judaism makes you an anti-Semite. After all, no one is immune to irrationality... My best guess is that it is a combination of all three.

You may also recall from the beginning I have been trying to get a straight answer as to why there has to be special justification to attack only that religion. As you can read currently I am still not getting a straight answer. All of my suggestions as to why have been ignored completely. Would you or anyone else reading this care to explain why?

[Now lets follow the replies to this post trying to shift the discussion away from anything that remotely sounds like an answer to that question.]

I'll try and answer that. I will like to start by stating that I consider all religions irrational, Judaism is no exception. My main focus, is not so much to fight religion, but irrationality. That being said, as far as Judaism is concerned, I find it to be more liberal (with obvious extremist exceptions) then most other religions. So while I have no particular love for it, in the grand scheme of things it is relatively lower on the totem pole of energy investment. On the other side of the coin, there's the whole political aspect, which I personally have no interest in.

I find the whole "we are the chosen people" no more or less idiotic then scientology claims. But I find them less harmful then Muslim claims regarding the evil that is all of the western world.

That being said, your attitude is bordering on religious bigotry, I see little difference when Fury does the "better then thou art", or you do then "jews are running the world" bit. It's all irrational to me. To put it in perspective, short of the relatively recent western involvement, post 9/11, the middle-eastern conflict was relatively minor when compared to African conflicts and other active ongoing conflicts. It just has way more political exposure, ironically partly due to the whole "jews rule the world, and must die" irrational mentality.

In an uneducated "documentary channel" principle I agree with you that an injustice was done to the Palestinian people. The fact that they are using the Islamic religion to justify said injustice really works against them in my opinion, and I have a hard time siding with anyone that calls Allah, Jesus, or Chutulu to justify exterminating anyone.

You come across as a very focused hater, and that is why my BS senses are tingling so much that they tickle, when reading your posts. If there is any truth to what you write, and I don't doubt that you are in fact at least partly correct, it is overshadowed by your presentation and style.

I hope that answers your question.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Israel is a democracy. The people are the government. On what basis will you make a distinction?

The Israeli government does not always represent the interests of everyone it governs. Some Israelis have objections to what their government does. The people in any country are far too diverse in their tastes, values, goals, dreams, etc. for any government to represent. That said, I think there is a huge difference between the people that live in a country and the government that runs said country.

You should check out this site: www.voluntaryist.com/ It will probably explain some of my views better than I can. Unfortunately, I am not always good at writing my thoughts down in a coherent manner.

Then there is no law involved here as mutual agreement is absent. Every other word on the subject is distraction from the fact of theft. Why all the extra words when they are only a distraction from the fact? I expect thieves to be justifying theft but why are you jumping in?

I was getting very frustrated with all the "original owner" stuff. The biggest problem I see is if someone is living on a piece of land they bought but didn't know was stolen and the one who it was stolen from comes and wants it back. That's just a really shitty problem right there. However, your proposal of the buyer suing the seller for compensation seems very reasonable.

The owner is the one with the title. It is the person whom Israel acknowledged owned it and confiscated it from by means of the absentee owner laws. Suing the seller for defective title is the standard remedy. In the US to avoid a chain of lawsuits going back to the original defect people buy title insurance. I assume most countries require title insurance. Title insurance companies cannot be assumed innocent or ignorant. They must be required to have sufficient reserves to pay claims. The claim remains legitimate regardless of the solvency of the insurance company.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Most European countries allow third generation to return no questions asked so they can leave at any time.

That's pretty handy. I mean, if I lived in Israel I would want to leave as soon as possible. I imagine the place feels like a war zone. Well, in some areas, it actually is a war zone...

They probably owe the custom to the US attracting so many immigrants. And the idea of nationalism by blood was popular in the 19th c. long before adopted by the Zionists.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I posted the solution many years ago. End all US support in any form. Criminalize supporting war criminals. Bring Israel before the ICC for its crimes. If it has a valid defense it can tell it to the judge. Do that and it won't take long for Jews to abandon the country and those who remain to make peace.

Of course the owners get their land back. The current owners can sue whoever sold it to them. Their legal problems do not impinge the rights of the original owners.

Oh, well, I generally don't support military intervention anywhere. I also generally don't support government alliances or foreign aid from one government to another. The problem is that not everyone under a government agrees on who to be allies with and who to help. Plus, tax money often goes towards things that the person paying it doesn't even support. For example, any taxpayer in the US who though invading Iraq was a bad idea still had to fund it through their taxes...

Boycotts and blockades are not military actions according to Israel in the matter of Gaza. As to people having different opinions under a government, that is life. It has always been that way in every government. It is not a consideration. But in a democracy there is even less justification for considering it.

Quote:

I definitely agree with stopping US support. However, if some person/business in the US wants to trade with some person/business in Israel, I do not think it should be prohibited. If individuals in the US want to send money to support Israel I do not think it should be prohibited. The rest of your argument seems to make sense, but I am kind of leery of supporting it. It is difficult for me to trust what either you or furry have to say on the subject. I'll have to look it up myself (which I really should do anyway).

Whether it should or should not be the government's business who its citizens trades with is a separate issue. The fact is since the US banned trade in certain materials with Japan before WWII it has been a fact for the US. It has become a fact for the world as it is a common practice in the world today.

If people what to support a foreign country ... Any foreign country? Usual, reasonable and customary apply here too. There were such bans in place during the Cold War and there still is toward Cuba. Further as the squattertowns in the West Bank and the building in Jerusalem and a host of other actions are war crimes banning the support of criminal activity is clearly reasonable and justified. There is no way to separate money to Israel from criminal usage of it so all has to be banned.

I did not ask you to trust me. I am saying nothing new. You can look into it yourself. It all googles nicely. In fact on this subject those against what I say almost never present a legal objection to what I say. They simply start accusing me of unrelated things. I would enjoy a discussion of the subject for a change.

Quote:

Both your furry's statements seem too dismissive of the other side, but I really don't know...

The reason this (being dismissive of the other side) concerns me is that whenever I see or hear any person/group dismissing the rights of any another person/group as not worth consideration, I become very sad and afraid: classifying someone or some group as inferior is often used as a justification for violence against said person or group.

Who and what rights are you talking about? There are human, legal and civil rights. I know of no more than those three categories. To what and whom do you refer?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The claim Judaism was harmless lead to the observation that people should not be judged by what they do out of power but by what they do when in power. And that lead to Israel.

You may also recall from the beginning I have been trying to get a straight answer as to why there has to be special justification to attack only that religion. As you can read currently I am still not getting a straight answer. All of my suggestions as to why have been ignored completely. Would you or anyone else reading this care to explain why?

I don't think it needs special justification, it's just that most atheists on this board don't focus their attacks on any specific religion (at least not from what I've read). Perhaps they're just confused and/or curious as to why you focus on only one religion. They make think Judaism is not worth the effort to single out since Jews make up such a small percentage of believers. Or, they may just automatically assume that attacking Judaism makes you an anti-Semite. After all, no one is immune to irrationality... My best guess is that it is a combination of all three.

If you have not noticed the remarks on Islam by many of the participants here you haven't been reading much. It isn't "some" Muslims. It is out and out hatred for which I cannot find parallel in any words really spoken called antisemitic.

Did you read my post on the oldest example of the accusation of antisemitism? www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/hate-jews.phtml If not you can read it there. Most of the accusations are nonsense. The historical claims are usually based upon jewish legend instead of real history. And for some like Furrywiththesyringeonthetop it is refusing to believe her absurd claims and patent lies about Judaism. On top of that, jewish hatred of Christians can be traced by to Roman times including the attempted extermination of the Christians -- read Acts. Saul/Paul was paid to track them down for extermination. Not that I would suggest taking Acts literally or as historically accurate but the attempted to kill them off is likely correct as they were Galilean rebels and heretics refusing to pay their temple taxes. The present day open and vocal hatres of Islam/Muslims/Arabs needs no examples. And it is never SOME Arabs so there is no reason ever to say SOME Jews.

An allegation of antisemite is meaningless. One can address the truth of what is said. If it is true so what? The truth cannot be antisemitic. A fact is a fact.

When Israel declares itself to be a jewish state it is perfectly acceptable to say that it what Jews are like when they are in power. I do not hear Jews saying it is not a jewish state. I do hear people saying, Only the good parts are Jewish, which is childish. How about only the good parts of Iran or Saudi?

When Furry misrepresents jewish scripture should I remain silent? Any more silent when Israel is misrepresented? Hearing not all Jews agree with the actions of Israel has no more weight than hearing all Germans did not agree with the actions of the Nazis. And as the silence is deafening in both cases upon whose word am I supposed to take the claim of exceptions? I read Israeli papers. The worst of condemnations is praising with faint damns. To paraphrase, "Declare the country is threatened and say the peacmakers are endangering the country. It works every time." That is what Israelis do and that is what Goering said about getting support for war.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

You may also recall from the beginning I have been trying to get a straight answer as to why there has to be special justification to attack only that religion. As you can read currently I am still not getting a straight answer. All of my suggestions as to why have been ignored completely. Would you or anyone else reading this care to explain why?

[Now lets follow the replies to this post trying to shift the discussion away from anything that remotely sounds like an answer to that question.]

I'll try and answer that. I will like to start by stating that I consider all religions irrational, Judaism is no exception. My main focus, is not so much to fight religion, but irrationality. That being said, as far as Judaism is concerned, I find it to be more liberal (with obvious extremist exceptions) then most other religions. So while I have no particular love for it, in the grand scheme of things it is relatively lower on the totem pole of energy investment. On the other side of the coin, there's the whole political aspect, which I personally have no interest in.

Even if that description were correct how does liberal grant an exception?

And does your incorrect assumption prohibit me from correcting it before moving on?

Yes, it is true the media has latched on to a few liberal spokescritters for Judaism as representative of Judaism just as it latches onto Falwell and like to represent Christianity and the views on abortion and birth control to represent Catholicism. A thing it not its media image.

Is it proper for me to point out women gynaeacologists in Israel are not permitted to speak at conferences on the subject? Is it permitted for me to ask if that is liberal?

Is it permitted for me to ask if "Israel should end the occupation of the West Bank" is either a condemnation of the occupation or a liberal statement?

Is it permitted for me to point out that liberal only applies when declaring what non-Jews should do and are not addressed towards what Jews do?

Quote:

I find the whole "we are the chosen people" no more or less idiotic then scientology claims. But I find them less harmful then Muslim claims regarding the evil that is all of the western world.

Is it permissible to ask for ask for a definition of Jew? The best I have been able to come up with over the years and after actually asking a lot of Jews is that it is no different from a fraternal organization with a ladies auxiliary. That is not a joke at least for the Reform. The Conservative are reluctant to say the Reform are not Jews. The Orthodox quite openly say the Reform are not Jews and that they question the Conservative.

So here WE are with people who declare themselves to be Jews not agreeing among themselves.

Yet only the Reform produce these liberals and even they are liberals only about other people's business. Yes, Jews were right up front in the civil rights movement. Yes, the Falashmura are lower than AYrabs in Israel. Which is the real jewish character? I really don't have to go to Israel for the example. New York City will do fine. Schwartze really is Yiddish for nigger. That has never been in question.

Quote:

That being said, your attitude is bordering on religious bigotry, I see little difference when Fury does the "better then thou art", or you do then "jews are running the world" bit. It's all irrational to me.

Of course that appears irrational to you as I have never said anything remotely like that. Why would you make up a thing like that to attribute to me?

If Zionism was not a worldwide jewish conspiracy what is your definition of conspiracy? Jewish? Perhaps just world wide?

But that is hardly a claim that Jews are running the world. It is not even close.

Quote:

To put it in perspective, short of the relatively recent western involvement, post 9/11, the middle-eastern conflict was relatively minor when compared to African conflicts and other active ongoing conflicts. It just has way more political exposure, ironically partly due to the whole "jews rule the world, and must die" irrational mentality.

Pardon but the US response to both the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and to the invasion of Iraq because of 9/11 was almost entirely Jewish and they openly said so. It is well documented that they did say so. Citing what they said was simply declared antisemitic or jewish conspiracy even though documented.

And when the Iraq war hysteria was lead twice by people who claim to be Jews (and their Amen Choir in Congress) is it not more important to ask what does Jew mean? The Torah says those who keep the Law which is 613 separate laws -- your fingers may vary. How can an atheist be a Jew? Is it proper to call the atheist Wolfowitz who falsified so many claims about Iraq after 9/11 a Jew? You tell me. He is a flaming liberal if that is what you mean. Most "neo" conservatives are liberals with a new label.

When there is no working definition of Jew that Jews agree upon what is one to do with the word? So when I read, Israel should end the occupation for its own good, I also read, If you can make it good for Israel screw 'em.

Quote:

In an uneducated "documentary channel" principle I agree with you that an injustice was done to the Palestinian people. The fact that they are using the Islamic religion to justify said injustice really works against them in my opinion, and I have a hard time siding with anyone that calls Allah, Jesus, or Chutulu to justify exterminating anyone.

Let me repeat. The original injustice to the Palestinians continues to this day and is made worse every day by the occupation and blockade. This is not a discussion of some dead fact of history before you were born. Yet that is the way the discussion keeps being shunted.

May I point out that it is only in jewish propaganda that there is a claim Islam has called for the extermination of anyone. They have called for getting rid of Israel. Jews got rid of Palestine. They wiped it off the map. There is no rational basis for claiming either is extermination.

I do object to passing off jewish propaganda of that sort as fact. It is clearly a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. It is a similar deliberate misrepresentation when someone like Ahmadinejad says Zionists and the media claims he said Jews. And if someone says there is no difference I rest my case. I have read the real translations. I have looked at the translations used in Europe. The word is always Zionist. Only the US translates it as Jews.

Is it permitted to ask why the US is the only country which gets an incorrect translation that plays into the political interests of Israel? We can all solemnly swear we do not believe there is a conspiracy. We still need an explanation.

Quote:

You come across as a very focused hater, and that is why my BS senses are tingling so much that they tickle, when reading your posts. If there is any truth to what you write, and I don't doubt that you are in fact at least partly correct, it is overshadowed by your presentation and style.

I hope that answers your question.

I believe I have demonstrated in the above response that anything I have really said I can support with facts. Of course I am not responsible for things I have not said.

I am always open to reasonable explanations for facts such as why the US is the only country that gets incorrect translations. That is a reasonable question. It is also legitimate to ask why so many Americans who identify themselves as Jews, whatever Jew might mean, created so many lies about Iraq which at the time Israel declared to be its greatest existential threat. It is also of interest why we are getting the same barrage of lies about Iran when Israel has made the same existential claim about Iran.

===

To sum up,

Liberal does not give a pass for any religion. It only appears among Reform who are rejected as or considered questionable Jews by the other two main branches. There is no functional definition of what Jew means that fits them all which is what the Orthodox and Conservative are saying.

Islam is presented as a false alternative to whatever Jew might mean. Problematic US involvement in the middle east is infinitely complicated by support of Israel and support of its oppression of millions of Palestinians without compensatory benefit.

While there is no conspiracy save zionism itself we do have a set of facts which beg rational explanation absent a coordinated effort by person or persons unknown.

And the fact that I shoot down assertions which are contrary to fact makes my posts questionable.

I still must ask for SPECIFIC examples and WHY. The closest you came to a specific was asserting I claimed Jews are running the world which I have not. None of the rest is specific to what I have in fact posted. Yet the things you allude to are based upon fact. If you object to the facts, fine, refute them.

If there is no refutation, the truth cannot be antisemitic.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Israel is a democracy. The people are the government. On what basis will you make a distinction?

The Israeli government does not always represent the interests of everyone it governs. Some Israelis have objections to what their government does. The people in any country are far too diverse in their tastes, values, goals, dreams, etc. for any government to represent. That said, I think there is a huge difference between the people that live in a country and the government that runs said country.

You should check out this site: www.voluntaryist.com/ It will probably explain some of my views better than I can. Unfortunately, I am not always good at writing my thoughts down in a coherent manner.

Excuse me but what is the point of saying the government is not by unanimous consent? It is not the custom of the world to take that into consideration. If it were reasonable to mitigate a response based upon those who disagree how could there ever be a military response against a dictatorship?

In a democracy we can at least reasonably assume 51% support of the government. In a dictatorship we can at most assume only about 10% support the government and even then the 10% regularly kills off internal opposition so even fewer may actually agree with any particular action.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Excuse me but what is the point of saying the government is not by unanimous consent? It is not the custom of the world to take that into consideration.

I think that should change. One group believing that their ideas are good enough to be forced on everyone is one the primary causes of so many issues in the world. This is why I lean towards voluntaryism: the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary. Basically, while most people agree that individuals should not force their ideas or choices on others, few seem to apply this principle to groups--especially large ones. Would you agree that talking and discussion are the best ways to resolve differences and problems? This method fails if you're faced with someone who wants to hurt you, but, otherwise, its generally very effective--people use it all the time.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

how could there ever be a military response against a dictatorship?

You assume that there should be. There are other ways of resisting oppression. The movement led by Mahatma Ghandi that freed India from British rule is probably the most famous example of non-violent resistance to a dictatorship. It seems like you think that violence is necessary to solve problems.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In a democracy we can at least reasonably assume 51% support of the government.

I agree that democracy is a MUCH better form of government than dictatorship. However, your example leaves 49% of a population unhappy with their government--do their needs not matter? Unfortunately, unanimous consent is probably impossible on a large scale. This is why I say that people should be free to collaborate with others and establish and live under whatever form of government they so desire--including living under no government at all.

The owner is the one with the title. It is the person whom Israel acknowledged owned it and confiscated it from by means of the absentee owner laws. Suing the seller for defective title is the standard remedy. In the US to avoid a chain of lawsuits going back to the original defect people buy title insurance. I assume most countries require title insurance. Title insurance companies cannot be assumed innocent or ignorant. They must be required to have sufficient reserves to pay claims. The claim remains legitimate regardless of the solvency of the insurance company.

Seems pretty reasonable and straightforward--I like it. You can be quite thorough and concise. I'm wary of the idea of forced insurance, but that's another matter and I don't know too much about title insurance anyway.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Who and what rights are you talking about? There are human, legal and civil rights. I know of no more than those three categories. To what and whom do you refer?

Honestly, to any rights of any group. There are probably some exceptions but I can't think of any. I was going to cite a quote George H. W. Bush made about atheists, but, apparently, there aren't that many sources linking the quote to him, and their reliability is disputed. Oh well... Some general examples would be the severe lack of rights for women in some countries in the Middle East, the prohibition on gay marriage in the US, legislation mandating that "life begins at conception", the Catholic Church covering up priest sex abuse scandals, Muslims and Arabs being treated poorly in the US, as well as almost any war.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The present day open and vocal hatres of Islam/Muslims/Arabs needs no examples. And it is never SOME Arabs so there is no reason ever to say SOME Jews.

I'm not sure what you mean. There are people in the US who hate/fear ALL Muslims (or anyone who looks Arab, really), because SOME, though very few, Muslims are terrorists. You are not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, correct? If you mean people calling you anti-Jewish because you attack Israel then, yes, they are wrong.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to people having different opinions under a government, that is life. It has always been that way in every government. It is not a consideration. But in a democracy there is even less justification for considering it.

The fact that people are forced to support a war they don't agree with is worth considering. The fact that people who promote peace are forced to pay for mass death and destruction is worth considering. Assuming you are a US taxpayer, you obviously don't like the fact that your tax money is aiding Israel. Furthermore, I assume you think that your issue is worth consideration.

Excuse me but what is the point of saying the government is not by unanimous consent? It is not the custom of the world to take that into consideration.

I think that should change.

Lots of things should change. How to make them change is the hard part. It took well over a century of thought to back up the colonial American first modern attempt at self rule replacing essentially all previous history. Even the supposed Athenian and Roman predecessors were like the British House of Lords. The US was all Commons and it worked one way or another. Worked good enough to be sort of a model but it inspired mostly parliamenary systems which are quite different in practice. I don't have an opinion on which is better. I only hold neither qualifies as best.

Anyway, do not let me discourage you from becoming a political philosopher. Maybe you will become one of the "oft quoted" who are praised/blamed for everything right/wrong. I prefer anonymity as my fate.

Quote:

One group believing that their ideas are good enough to be forced on everyone is one the primary causes of so many issues in the world. This is why I lean towards voluntaryism: the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary. Basically, while most people agree that individuals should not force their ideas or choices on others, few seem to apply this principle to groups--especially large ones. Would you agree that talking and discussion are the best ways to resolve differences and problems? This method fails if you're faced with someone who wants to hurt you, but, otherwise, its generally very effective--people use it all the time.

I am libertarian as a guiding principle but also I realize idealism cannot be substituted for reality. If Ron Paul were to say that he could win as that does appear to be his political record. It is good to have guiding principles as so many things are too complex to solve in real time. Legislation needs a response tomorrow, the philosophy can take decades.

Let me suggest it is rarely forcing ideas upon others. Rather the problems arise when people do not conform to presumed norms. No one really imposes their idea of child rearing upon others but molesting a child is a cause for summary execution not discussion. While talking sounds great minor disagreements are normally handled by discussion and eventual agreement so it already exists.

On the other claw we have the problem that national disagreements are entirely different from personal conflict. Family feuds are a pale imitation of war but there is enough folklore about family feuds that we should realize they quickly become insoluable for reasons far from personal.

On the third claw there are two surviving passages which blame constant warfare on polygamy which results in young males without women and ready to fight for them.

The Kzinti have only three claws so they cannot handle a four sided problem any more than we can handle a three sided problem. But it appears clear if there is nothing to gain from war wars do not start. Of course there is always imaginary gain but if war results in an immediate loss rather they are less likely to start. There is a document from Spain listing why it could not join the Axis in WWII. It is well thought out and purely resource driven. If it joined the Allies would embargo more than the Axis could supply therefore no. The 2003 conquest of Iraq was preceded by an agreement with Saudi to increase production to make up for the loss from Iraq.

This sort of thinking is the reality of war. Gains v losses and is it affordable. The more interdependent the world the less likely a war. Back to the thread, if Israel were cut off from non-economic based support, charity from the US and Jews, it would have every reason to make nice with its neighbors. Its propensity for conflict entails minimal economic penalties.

Quote:

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

how could there ever be a military response against a dictatorship?

You assume that there should be. There are other ways of resisting oppression. The movement led by Mahatma Ghandi that freed India from British rule is probably the most famous example of non-violent resistance to a dictatorship. It seems like you think that violence is necessary to solve problems.

If they shoot at you or threaten to shoot at you there should be. Consider an alternative to Ghandi. The Brits killed him back when he switched from business suits to robes. Would you know his name? In the famous march to the sea to make salt, if he and his followers had been machinegunned when they started moving towards the sea would he be more than a footnote on a trigger happy local bureaucrat making a mistake?

Back to the thread, there are so few non-violent Palestinian leaders because Israelis know about Ghandi. All the non-violent Palestinians have been in Israeli prisons for decades without charges. Advocating non-violent resistance to Jews results is entombment at best, an accidental gun discharge at worst. Those are the facts I have learned from reading Israeli newspapers.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In a democracy we can at least reasonably assume 51% support of the government.

I agree that democracy is a MUCH better form of government than dictatorship. However, your example leaves 49% of a population unhappy with their government--do their needs not matter? Unfortunately, unanimous consent is probably impossible on a large scale. This is why I say that people should be free to collaborate with others and establish and live under whatever form of government they so desire--including living under no government at all.

Wrong in principle. Democracy is better in the long term but a dicatorship can be better in the short term. Democracy always wins in the long term as the peasants are revolting -- at least they know how to behead kings and dictators. Democracy is just orderly beheading.

As to people unhappy with their government and if their government leads to their country being embargoed and blockaded they can certainly follow the example of the Egyptians and revolt against it.

No one said it was easy to be a democrat. There is one line about the tree of liberty being watered with the blood of tyrants. We are human and it often takes deadly force for reasons which are in our nature and at this time not amenable to change because of our limited knowledge of ourselves. We are improving. I might suggest that making geopolitics a mandatory grade school subject could not hurt.

I have no expectation of any sudden change or break through but rather a modest hope that we will continue to develop a world economy that makes trade rather than war a cheaper approach to the same end. Trade is win-win not a zero sum game.

Speaking of trade, I took up coffee as a hobby a few years ago. A couple months ago I found two coffees from China. One of them was really good. Coffees from China is not a typo. Should we rule China for its coffee? Why did the Brits rule India for its tea? At the time it started it made economic sense. By the time it ended it cost more than it was worth.

I merely look for a way to make war uneconomical because people will make war for economic gain, period.

Consider the US military expenditures have reduced from 30% of revenues in the 1950s to 6-7% or so today with no loss of military security. It is dwindling away. It does not concern me. We are going in the peaceful direction. And we are still the greatest in the world be every measure meaning the world's interest in military matters is decreasing even faster than our interest.

War is like atheism, we are just observing its success in progress not contributing to it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

they were people who were taking military "orders" ("orders" is the wrong word, but I'd like to make dinner as I skipped lunch ...) from the invading Arab armies

Ok, that is a pretty big difference. If their actions were endangering the lives of those who were living in Israel, then the Israeli government certainly has justification for imprisoning them.

They weren't imprisoned, they were expelled. G-d willing, they will stay expelled.

There was a large piece of land -- "The British Mandate" -- that was being carved up from the old Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, who controlled that region prior to WWI, sided with the German side in that war and lost. After carving Jordan and other countries (83% of the total land) out of the British Mandate, that left what came to be known as "Palestine" post WWI. The idea had been to take some of that land and allocate it to Jewish inhabitants and some of that land and allocate it to Arab inhabitants, and keep other parts neutral. I think something like 6% of the total land in the Mandate was to be allocated to Jews.

The Arab nations in the area resisted giving any land to the Jewish inhabitants -- keeping in mind that the Jews who migrated to that part of the Ottoman Empire had =bought= the land they lived on -- and refused any sort of partition plan, including plans that would have given the Jewish people nothing but desert. The Arabs wanted 100% of the land, and wanted to drive the Jews into the sea -- their own leaders' words. When Israel finally declared Independence for the part of the land that had been allocated to us from the defeated Ottoman Empire, the Arabs attacked and many Arabs within that area sided with the attacking nations. Those are the ones whose land was confiscated, for the most part.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Right, and there are JEWS who are treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli government. As a minority, Israeli-Arabs are treated about as poorly as the rest of the minorities in Israel, and that includes minorities who are very much Jewish. It's a not a perfect country, but Israeli-Arabs have far more rights =inside= Israel than they'd have in the neighboring Arab states, and infinitely more rights than Jews would have in those states.

To give you an idea -- 6 or 8 years back I was asked about travel to the Middle East on business. I had to point out to the person asking about my ability to travel that I was Jewish and might not even be allowed in, and if I =was= allowed in, I wouldn't feel safe.

Keep that set of factoids in mind when attacking Israel, how about?

You've just given me even more reason to attack Israel... However, by "Israel" I mean the current Israeli government; not necessarily the individuals living within the nation. I'm assuming then that you want the Israeli government to change and stop treating anyone as second-class citizens--especially Jews. Is that correct?

The United States, where I assume you live, is equally "unjust". I'm a lesbian, more or less, and when my ex-wife and I wanted to do something that resembled "get married" we had to go to another state. Not that the state we lived in actually recognized our civil union, but we did it anyway. I'm not shooting or blowing up people in protest of my lack of marriage rights.

I'm also a Jew and can't buy alcohol until after noon on Sunday because that's when the government thinks it's okay for Christians to buy alcohol on a Sunday. I used to grocery shop after Sunday morning prayers which ended around 10AM, which meant if I wanted alcohol, I had to make a second trip after noon. That's what =my= government does to =me=. You don't see me blowing up people in protest, do you? Didn't think so.

I have clients in the Eastern Hemisphere, so when it's Monday there, it's Sunday here. But Sunday is a "day of rest", so getting business done when it's Sunday here is nigh on impossible. I'm still not out bombing anyone. I might not wind up with many Christian employees whenever I get around to hiring more people, but that's life -- Sunday is a work day for my company. Still not bombing anyone. I have clients in countries that aren't Christian, so Christian holidays are "work" days for me as well. I have a feeling I'll be hiring Jews, Muslims and Atheists, but not killing people who don't want to work when my customers need my company to be doing work.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Things have dramatically improved since 1948, which is what I was referring to. Today there are Arabs in the Knesset, for example, and many Israeli-Arab dominated towns have Israeli-Arabs for politicians. Most Arab countries have long since murdered or expelled their Jewish citizens and I don't know of any Arab nation which has a Jew in a political office.

I am very glad that the Israeli government is much better at protecting people's rights than the governments of the neighboring Arab states. However, the fact that it is so much better does not justify ignoring the problems that it does have. I imagine we agree on this.

Yes, we do, but you seem to be an idealist -- which is great and all that, but it doesn't justify the sorts of actions your new found friend Nony would advocate. Nony's solution is simple -- kill all the Jews. He won't put it that way, but that's what his "plans" would wind up doing.

Things take time. Two hundred years ago, not only was slavery legal in the United States, but women didn't have the vote and the U.S. government was still forcing Native Americans off of land the European colonists wanted. Fortunately women didn't take to the streets and kill all the men because we didn't have the vote.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

But what I was referring to were the promises those Arab leaders made to the Palestinian Arabs they were asking to leave -- they promised that the "Zionists" were going to be forced into the sea and Jewish property would be given to them as war booty. Not that they were going to get land that Israel confiscated from Arabs -- they were promised Jewish property in exchange for aiding the advancing Arab armies.

Ok, now I understand. Wait, but what if there were good reason to think that the Jewish property they were being promised was the land that Israel had taken from Arabs? Not that that justifies invasion; I think that if we have problems with each other we should discuss them--not attack each other. I imagine we also agree on this.

It wasn't -- the Jewish National Fund =bought= the land the Jews were living on and it didn't buy land that was being worked by Arabs because it wanted the Arabs in the region to stay.

In 1937 the Peel Commission found that the land we had bought and occupied wasn't habitable before we bought it --

Quote:

Findings

According to the Peel Commission report, Arab allegations regarding Jewish land purchase were unfounded. "Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased...There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." The land shortage decried by the Arabs "was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population."[1] However, "Endeavours to control the alienation of land by Arabs to Jews have not been successful. In the hills there is no more room for further close settlement by Jews; in the plains it should only be allowed under certain restrictions.[2]

Here's the thing to keep in mind -- that land area bordered in red? That's what the original partition called to be Jewish land. The Arabs =rejected= those borders. If you don't recognize the land, the body of water in the bottom half, in the middle, is the Dead Sea. The river to the north is the Jordan and the smaller body of water at the top is the Sea of Galilee. The area bordered in black, with the checkered pattern, is a corridor that connects Jerusalem to the coast.

There would be later partition plans, and those plans wound up giving slightly more land to Jews, but the Arabs rejected those, even though those plans also gave Jews a lot of otherwise worthless land. If you want proof of G-d's existence -- Israel is proof. No one else can make Israel bloom like we can. You can read all manner of reports from various historians and what was there before we got there really was sand dunes and malarial swamps. We move in, and the Land becomes green again. That's a bona fide miracle.

The final partition proposal -- the one that Israel declared Independence with -- was also rejected and the rest is history -- the British abandoned the Mandate, Israel declared Independence, five Arab nations attacked, Israel wound up with significantly more land than had been promised originally.

Over the course of the past six decades, Arab nations have repeatedly attacked Israel, with Israel winning war after war and the Arab states maintaining, for the most part, a belligerent position that includes driving all the Jews into the sea and wiping Israel off the map. That's what your buddy Nony wants.

The more time passes, the more I'm thinking that the best solution is simply for Israel to annex the rest of Judea and Samaria -- the Arab "leaders" haven't done any good for the Arabs living in the parts of Judea and Samaria that aren't yet formally part of Israel. There is a point where I think annexation makes a lot more sense than allowing their leaders to keep treating them like pawns to be exploited for their own political gain.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

The owner is the one with the title. It is the person whom Israel acknowledged owned it and confiscated it from by means of the absentee owner laws. Suing the seller for defective title is the standard remedy. In the US to avoid a chain of lawsuits going back to the original defect people buy title insurance. I assume most countries require title insurance. Title insurance companies cannot be assumed innocent or ignorant. They must be required to have sufficient reserves to pay claims. The claim remains legitimate regardless of the solvency of the insurance company.

Seems pretty reasonable and straightforward--I like it. You can be quite thorough and concise. I'm wary of the idea of forced insurance, but that's another matter and I don't know too much about title insurance anyway.

That is a Catch-22. The buyer is not required to buy the insurance but the presumed innocense of the seller is legal burden hard to overcome. Besides, it is cheaper than dirt. It is less than fee to the settlement attorney. The legal fees in tracing it back to the original at fault party are usually beyond the value of the property. And then what do you get? Bupkis usually. When you buy your first house get back to me. I have flipped over a million in real estate back when a million was real money. Speculation is fun when you don't have to live off of the earnings.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Who and what rights are you talking about? There are human, legal and civil rights. I know of no more than those three categories. To what and whom do you refer?

Honestly, to any rights of any group. There are probably some exceptions but I can't think of any. I was going to cite a quote George H. W. Bush made about atheists, but, apparently, there aren't that many sources linking the quote to him, and their reliability is disputed. Oh well... Some general examples would be the severe lack of rights for women in some countries in the Middle East, the prohibition on gay marriage in the US, legislation mandating that "life begins at conception", the Catholic Church covering up priest sex abuse scandals, Muslims and Arabs being treated poorly in the US, as well as almost any war.

There you introduce the concept of group rights in place of individual rights. So far no one has made an acceptable case for group rights. There are endless problems with every proposed concept of group rights. There is no rational basis for excluding women because they are a member of the group of women. We all agree with that more or less. But the response in the west has been to include women because they are members of the group of women. Pardon if I observe there is no change merely a reversal of the response to the group.

And that is the problem with group rights. The idea of group should go away and only individuals should remain. What is given to a group can be taken from a group. And anything that is given is a gift not a right. Individuals have rights. Groups can only have what the leaders of a group agree to. Who voted for the leaders? When did women elect a spokeswomen for women? Never happened. So what are we talking about here? Literally some few women who got media attention and their pet peeves addressed in law.

I have never met all women so I have no idea what that means. I only know the women I have known and none of them were interested in being considered a group or agreed with being the currently popular view of the legal group.

And if that does not make sense to you, please step up and be the spokesrat for men's rights, articulate them, and realize how totally dumb the idea is. So why is is not dumb when talking about women?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The present day open and vocal hatres of Islam/Muslims/Arabs needs no examples. And it is never SOME Arabs so there is no reason ever to say SOME Jews.

I'm not sure what you mean. There are people in the US who hate/fear ALL Muslims (or anyone who looks Arab, really), because SOME, though very few, Muslims are terrorists. You are not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist, correct? If you mean people calling you anti-Jewish because you attack Israel then, yes, they are wrong.

I am talking people right here, the guy with the avatar of a man holding an infant, who is the most virulent hater of Muslims I have ever come across and proud of it. He is just the most blatant. There are many others.

Theft and murder are contary to social order. Being against theft and murder are moral imperatives. Zionism is the embodiment of theft and murder. Anti-zionism is a moral imperative. l do not see why people find it hard to understand. It is so bleeding obvious unless one claims special exemptions for adherents to the religion of Judaism which is absurd.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As to people having different opinions under a government, that is life. It has always been that way in every government. It is not a consideration. But in a democracy there is even less justification for considering it.

The fact that people are forced to support a war they don't agree with is worth considering. The fact that people who promote peace are forced to pay for mass death and destruction is worth considering. Assuming you are a US taxpayer, you obviously don't like the fact that your tax money is aiding Israel. Furthermore, I assume you think that your issue is worth consideration.

If people do not like being forced they can revolt. Look to the US Declaration of Independence. One puts up with a lot because of the damages from revolting against them. When the penalties outweigh the cost then revolt.

So far the cost of being forced to support has been less than the cost of revolution. The American colonies had an easy decision as the benefits were most all in favor of England and anything lost could be bought from France which was more than willing to sell. Britain had tea. France had coffee. Guess what Americans drink.

At some fundamental level the only way to change things is revolution. The US has been on the verge of revolution since it started and so far only one breach in the civil war. I am not suggesting I think there are people armed and waiting. I am suggesting that occassionally things reach the boiling point. The failed overthrown of FDR's government has been established beyond question. The one that almost expelled Bush junior is one we are not supposed to admit almost happened even though his father and Clinton were supposed to lead the interim government. That is fact which does not appeal to conspiracy theorists which is why they do not talk about either.

Revolts are always lead from higher up. It takes a huge problem to result in something like the French and Russian revolutions. The US did not agree that those revolts were proportionate to the offense and supported neither. That is debatable but refusal to support was the political judgment of their times. The US was sympathetic to the failed 1906 Russian revolution and for what that is worth we got Isaac Asimov(ich) in exchange which is probably a fair trade -- without biting tongue.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Furry only declared she would not respond to me after I threatened to pull an Operation Daisy on her.

That refers to an outing of a pro-Israeli group that were all using the same login name and pasword. The trick was to include a transparent pixel linked to a website that logged the ip of those calling the pixel. That demonstated the login Daisy was posting from IPs around the world and often long posts minutes apart from arond the world showing at least two persons were responding under the same name.

This of course leads me to suspect Furry is a Daisy.

That is not an accusation. It is a possible fact based upon behavior. I leave it to readers to make up their own minds on the matter in light of what has happened.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Furry only declared she would not respond to me after I threatened to pull an Operation Daisy on her.

That refers to an outing of a pro-Israeli group that were all using the same login name and pasword. The trick was to include a transparent pixel linked to a website that logged the ip of those calling the pixel. That demonstated the login Daisy was posting from IPs around the world and often long posts minutes apart from arond the world showing at least two persons were responding under the same name.

This of course leads me to suspect Furry is a Daisy.

That is not an accusation. It is a possible fact based upon behavior. I leave it to readers to make up their own minds on the matter in light of what has happened.

No, I'm a touch-typist.

And not sure how you'd include this "transparent pixel" without my seeing the "img" tag in your text.

My explanation is the true explanation -- you seem to be very mentally unbalanced and I think that responding to you isn't doing you any good.

I'm also fairly confident that Brian Sapient is able to see all of the IP addresses is post from. He seems like a pretty smart guy, even if he is an atheist (gratuitous dig at Atheists intended to upset whomever is in need of upsetting )

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Anyway, do not let me discourage you from becoming a political philosopher. Maybe you will become one of the "oft quoted" who are praised/blamed for everything right/wrong. I prefer anonymity as my fate.

My reason for studying both the philosophy and the psychology is to gain a better understanding of the problems we face. Like you say--"how to make them change is the hard part". The more thorough an understanding of a problem one possesses, the easier it becomes to solve. Though the opposite is probably even more true: if you don't understand the problem, you won't be able to solve it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Legislation needs a response tomorrow, the philosophy can take decades.

Legislation doesn't always solve the problem, and, even if it does, they are generally more effective methods. Jumping to solutions often creates more problems than it solves. This is why I like science and philosophy: they are slow but thorough. As a side note, philosophy would be rather useless without studies in human behavior to verify or discredit it. You probably already knew that, but that's a big reason why I don't look at just the philosophy.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There you introduce the concept of group rights in place of individual rights. So far no one has made an acceptable case for group rights. There are endless problems with every proposed concept of group rights. There is no rational basis for excluding women because they are a member of the group of women. We all agree with that more or less. But the response in the west has been to include women because they are members of the group of women. Pardon if I observe there is no change merely a reversal of the response to the group.

And that is the problem with group rights. The idea of group should go away and only individuals should remain. What is given to a group can be taken from a group. And anything that is given is a gift not a right. Individuals have rights. Groups can only have what the leaders of a group agree to. Who voted for the leaders? When did women elect a spokeswomen for women? Never happened. So what are we talking about here? Literally some few women who got media attention and their pet peeves addressed in law.

I have never met all women so I have no idea what that means. I only know the women I have known and none of them were interested in being considered a group or agreed with being the currently popular view of the legal group.

And if that does not make sense to you, please step up and be the spokesrat for men's rights, articulate them, and realize how totally dumb the idea is. So why is is not dumb when talking about women?

Actually, I have done a fair amount of reading about the "Men's Rights Movement". The general idea is that men should not be discriminated against just because they are men. The claim is that men (and women) should not be denied rights granted to other individuals solely because of their sex. That said, the movement primarily deals with combating negative attitudes towards men in popular culture. Their biggest legal focus is on changing the fact that women are almost always granted custody of children in divorce cases--no matter how good the father may be.

I completely agree with you about the issue of group rights--I think they are a bad idea. The examples I cited were, I thought, instances of people being denied certain rights because they are part of a certain group.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have no expectation of any sudden change or break through but rather a modest hope that we will continue to develop a world economy that makes trade rather than war a cheaper approach to the same end. Trade is win-win not a zero sum game.

I merely look for a way to make war uneconomical because people will make war for economic gain, period.

War is like atheism, we are just observing its success in progress not contributing to it.

That is correct. However, a lot of individuals do not think economic gain is superior to human life. In addition, the success of atheism as an intellectual stance does not necessarily involve mass death and destruction--unlike war.

I believe we are looking to solve the same problem in different ways. I don't yet know enough about the problem to propose a solution. However, I think your hope/plan for making war not economically favorable is probably the most practical and immediately achievable way to end war.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The United States, where I assume you live, is equally "unjust". I'm a lesbian, more or less, and when my ex-wife and I wanted to do something that resembled "get married" we had to go to another state. Not that the state we lived in actually recognized our civil union, but we did it anyway. I'm not shooting or blowing up people in protest of my lack of marriage rights.

I'm also a Jew and can't buy alcohol until after noon on Sunday because that's when the government thinks it's okay for Christians to buy alcohol on a Sunday. I used to grocery shop after Sunday morning prayers which ended around 10AM, which meant if I wanted alcohol, I had to make a second trip after noon. That's what =my= government does to =me=. You don't see me blowing up people in protest, do you? Didn't think so.

I have clients in the Eastern Hemisphere, so when it's Monday there, it's Sunday here. But Sunday is a "day of rest", so getting business done when it's Sunday here is nigh on impossible. I'm still not out bombing anyone. I might not wind up with many Christian employees whenever I get around to hiring more people, but that's life -- Sunday is a work day for my company. Still not bombing anyone. I have clients in countries that aren't Christian, so Christian holidays are "work" days for me as well. I have a feeling I'll be hiring Jews, Muslims and Atheists, but not killing people who don't want to work when my customers need my company to be doing work.

Uh, I don't believe I have ever advocated violent revolution. When I said "attack Israel" I meant criticize actions of the Israeli government I don't approve of; I didn't mean physically attack the country.

I am also not very fond of the US government. I think the laws prohibiting homosexual marriage are quite unjust, and I think the laws regulating alcohol are just silly. However, I don't want anyone to violently protest these things. I much prefer peaceful solutions--there is already far too much death and killing in the world.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yes, we do, but you seem to be an idealist -- which is great and all that, but it doesn't justify the sorts of actions your new found friend Nony would advocate. Nony's solution is simple -- kill all the Jews. He won't put it that way, but that's what his "plans" would wind up doing.

Things take time. Two hundred years ago, not only was slavery legal in the United States, but women didn't have the vote and the U.S. government was still forcing Native Americans off of land the European colonists wanted. Fortunately women didn't take to the streets and kill all the men because we didn't have the vote.

You're right--I don't like violent resistance; that is part of the reason why I hesitate to support Nony's plan of action outside of withdrawing US government aid to Israel. While he is correct that people often resort to lethal force, I don't think we should just accept that as fact and move on. I think we should try to find out how to stop it. Since very few people are ever violent in their daily interactions, I do not think it is such an impractical idea.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you want proof of G-d's existence -- Israel is proof. No one else can make Israel bloom like we can. You can read all manner of reports from various historians and what was there before we got there really was sand dunes and malarial swamps. We move in, and the Land becomes green again. That's a bona fide miracle.

I mean, it could be because no one but the Jews had any interest in trying to make those parts of Israel livable...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Over the course of the past six decades, Arab nations have repeatedly attacked Israel, with Israel winning war after war and the Arab states maintaining, for the most part, a belligerent position that includes driving all the Jews into the sea and wiping Israel off the map. That's what your buddy Nony wants.

The more time passes, the more I'm thinking that the best solution is simply for Israel to annex the rest of Judea and Samaria -- the Arab "leaders" haven't done any good for the Arabs living in the parts of Judea and Samaria that aren't yet formally part of Israel. There is a point where I think annexation makes a lot more sense than allowing their leaders to keep treating them like pawns to be exploited for their own political gain.

Wouldn't annexation just result in even more violence...? I mean, I want people to be free--but would invading their country really accomplish that?

I am also not very fond of the US government. I think the laws prohibiting homosexual marriage are quite unjust, and I think the laws regulating alcohol are just silly. However, I don't want anyone to violently protest these things. I much prefer peaceful solutions--there is already far too much death and killing in the world.

I hate to ask this question, but you look very young. Are you old enough to vote? If you hate the US government and are old enough to vote, I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror. Then I suggest you work to elect politicians you like.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yes, we do, but you seem to be an idealist -- which is great and all that, but it doesn't justify the sorts of actions your new found friend Nony would advocate. Nony's solution is simple -- kill all the Jews. He won't put it that way, but that's what his "plans" would wind up doing.

Things take time. Two hundred years ago, not only was slavery legal in the United States, but women didn't have the vote and the U.S. government was still forcing Native Americans off of land the European colonists wanted. Fortunately women didn't take to the streets and kill all the men because we didn't have the vote.

You're right--I don't like violent resistance; that is part of the reason why I hesitate to support Nony's plan of action outside of withdrawing US government aid to Israel. While he is correct that people often resort to lethal force, I don't think we should just accept that as fact and move on. I think we should try to find out how to stop it. Since very few people are ever violent in their daily interactions, I do not think it is such an impractical idea.

Why withdraw aid to Israel? We provide aid a lot of countries in the region. Should we withdraw =all= of the aid we provide, or just aid to Israel? And should Israel stop providing the United States with aid as well? Because, you see, Israel isn't a stupid country.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you want proof of G-d's existence -- Israel is proof. No one else can make Israel bloom like we can. You can read all manner of reports from various historians and what was there before we got there really was sand dunes and malarial swamps. We move in, and the Land becomes green again. That's a bona fide miracle.

I mean, it could be because no one but the Jews had any interest in trying to make those parts of Israel livable...

ALL of Eretz Yisrael use to be livable. Funny how the Romans run us out and parts stop being livable ...

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Over the course of the past six decades, Arab nations have repeatedly attacked Israel, with Israel winning war after war and the Arab states maintaining, for the most part, a belligerent position that includes driving all the Jews into the sea and wiping Israel off the map. That's what your buddy Nony wants.

The more time passes, the more I'm thinking that the best solution is simply for Israel to annex the rest of Judea and Samaria -- the Arab "leaders" haven't done any good for the Arabs living in the parts of Judea and Samaria that aren't yet formally part of Israel. There is a point where I think annexation makes a lot more sense than allowing their leaders to keep treating them like pawns to be exploited for their own political gain.

Wouldn't annexation just result in even more violence...? I mean, I want people to be free--but would invading their country really accomplish that?

Judea and Samaria are already part of Israel. There's no "invading" needing to be done.

I mean, you get in your car, you drive, you're in Judea in an hour or so, after starting from somewhere else in Israel.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I am also not very fond of the US government. I think the laws prohibiting homosexual marriage are quite unjust, and I think the laws regulating alcohol are just silly. However, I don't want anyone to violently protest these things. I much prefer peaceful solutions--there is already far too much death and killing in the world.

I hate to ask this question, but you look very young. Are you old enough to vote? If you hate the US government and are old enough to vote, I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror. Then I suggest you work to elect politicians you like.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yes, we do, but you seem to be an idealist -- which is great and all that, but it doesn't justify the sorts of actions your new found friend Nony would advocate. Nony's solution is simple -- kill all the Jews. He won't put it that way, but that's what his "plans" would wind up doing.

Things take time. Two hundred years ago, not only was slavery legal in the United States, but women didn't have the vote and the U.S. government was still forcing Native Americans off of land the European colonists wanted. Fortunately women didn't take to the streets and kill all the men because we didn't have the vote.

You're right--I don't like violent resistance; that is part of the reason why I hesitate to support Nony's plan of action outside of withdrawing US government aid to Israel. While he is correct that people often resort to lethal force, I don't think we should just accept that as fact and move on. I think we should try to find out how to stop it. Since very few people are ever violent in their daily interactions, I do not think it is such an impractical idea.

Why withdraw aid to Israel? We provide aid a lot of countries in the region. Should we withdraw =all= of the aid we provide, or just aid to Israel? And should Israel stop providing the United States with aid as well? Because, you see, Israel isn't a stupid country.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If you want proof of G-d's existence -- Israel is proof. No one else can make Israel bloom like we can. You can read all manner of reports from various historians and what was there before we got there really was sand dunes and malarial swamps. We move in, and the Land becomes green again. That's a bona fide miracle.

I mean, it could be because no one but the Jews had any interest in trying to make those parts of Israel livable...

ALL of Eretz Yisrael use to be livable. Funny how the Romans run us out and parts stop being livable ...

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Over the course of the past six decades, Arab nations have repeatedly attacked Israel, with Israel winning war after war and the Arab states maintaining, for the most part, a belligerent position that includes driving all the Jews into the sea and wiping Israel off the map. That's what your buddy Nony wants.

The more time passes, the more I'm thinking that the best solution is simply for Israel to annex the rest of Judea and Samaria -- the Arab "leaders" haven't done any good for the Arabs living in the parts of Judea and Samaria that aren't yet formally part of Israel. There is a point where I think annexation makes a lot more sense than allowing their leaders to keep treating them like pawns to be exploited for their own political gain.

Wouldn't annexation just result in even more violence...? I mean, I want people to be free--but would invading their country really accomplish that?

Judea and Samaria are already part of Israel. There's no "invading" needing to be done.

I mean, you get in your car, you drive, you're in Judea in an hour or so, after starting from somewhere else in Israel.

Well that explains everything. So this drivers ed lesson justifies stupid laws about food? When I took drivers ed, it wasn't about borders or food or pecking orders. It was about speed limits and turn signals, legal lane changes and traffic lights. Funny how traffic laws are more interchangeable than holy books.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

The United States, where I assume you live, is equally "unjust". I'm a lesbian, more or less, and when my ex-wife and I wanted to do something that resembled "get married" we had to go to another state. Not that the state we lived in actually recognized our civil union, but we did it anyway. I'm not shooting or blowing up people in protest of my lack of marriage rights.

I'm also a Jew and can't buy alcohol until after noon on Sunday because that's when the government thinks it's okay for Christians to buy alcohol on a Sunday. I used to grocery shop after Sunday morning prayers which ended around 10AM, which meant if I wanted alcohol, I had to make a second trip after noon. That's what =my= government does to =me=. You don't see me blowing up people in protest, do you? Didn't think so.

I have clients in the Eastern Hemisphere, so when it's Monday there, it's Sunday here. But Sunday is a "day of rest", so getting business done when it's Sunday here is nigh on impossible. I'm still not out bombing anyone. I might not wind up with many Christian employees whenever I get around to hiring more people, but that's life -- Sunday is a work day for my company. Still not bombing anyone. I have clients in countries that aren't Christian, so Christian holidays are "work" days for me as well. I have a feeling I'll be hiring Jews, Muslims and Atheists, but not killing people who don't want to work when my customers need my company to be doing work.

LMAO, ok, I hope you were jesting because that just made me laugh. Save the same sex marriage, those have to be the absolute worst examples of persecution I have ever heard outside the comedy channel. I was almost expecting to see a:

LMAO, ok, I hope you were jesting because that just made me laugh. Save the same sex marriage, those have to be the absolute worst examples of persecution I have ever heard outside the comedy channel. I was almost expecting to see a:

"Same sex marriage" is a proxy for all of the other rights that same sex couples are denied.

The photo in my avatar is from a Human Rights Campaign dinner. They had some speaker who was trying to get us all motivated to support same sex marriage. There was a gay couple sitting next to me (very carefully cropped and shopped out ...) and just after this speaker started talking about how important same-sex marriage was I turned to one of the guys and said "I'm working on same sex divorce."

Now =that= is an example of persecution. They won't let you get married, then when you =do= get married anyway, they won't let you get divorced.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I hate to ask this question, but you look very young. Are you old enough to vote? If you hate the US government and are old enough to vote, I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror. Then I suggest you work to elect politicians you like.

I am 21. My avatar picture is from when I was 17. I voted for Barack Obama (as well as lots of other people) in 2008. If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I plan on voting for him in 2012. I doubt electing new/different politicians will help; the incentives inherent in the system are the real issue. For example, getting elected often requires a long, costly campaign. The biggest donors to these campaigns are typically special interest groups, corporations, labor unions, etc. who trade their money for the promise of having their political goals forwarded. Therefore, while individual voters are the ones who elect a politician, said politician also has to please the special interest groups that donated if he/she wants to get the money necessary to get re-elected. Basically, a politician may be primarily interested in working for his donors, rather than his voters. Secondly, the way to advance as a politician is to sponsor and/or propose new legislation. In other words, a politician who doesn't think new laws will help--but also wants to keep his job--will work to pass new laws. Thirdly, people are irrational: they often demand that the government protect them without first investigating whether passing new laws will actually help.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Why withdraw aid to Israel? We provide aid a lot of countries in the region. Should we withdraw =all= of the aid we provide, or just aid to Israel? And should Israel stop providing the United States with aid as well? Because, you see, Israel isn't a stupid country.

I am generally opposed to governments providing foreign aid. I believe that money would be better spent in trading with said countries. So yes, I think the US government should stop all of its foreign aid, and I think the Israeli government should too. I do not think governments should spend their taxpayers' money on things that their taxpayers do not support. I do not think people should be forced to spend their money on things they wouldn't voluntarily spend it on otherwise. However, I am definitely not to trade between the US and Israel or individuals donating their money to either country.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Judea and Samaria are already part of Israel. There's no "invading" needing to be done.

I mean, you get in your car, you drive, you're in Judea in an hour or so, after starting from somewhere else in Israel.

Huh? If they're already part of Israel, why would they need to be annexed? (sorry if this is a stupid question)

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ALL of Eretz Yisrael use to be livable. Funny how the Romans run us out and parts stop being livable ...

Haven't all those people been dead for close to 2000 years? I don't see how you could possibly have more in common with them than with anyone alive now...

Plus, I really think you're stretching things a little: if people abandoned Las Vegas it would eventually become a desert again too...

I don't doubt that somethings along those lines happened; I just think that attributing the cause to magic is rather...unscientific.

Anyway, do not let me discourage you from becoming a political philosopher. Maybe you will become one of the "oft quoted" who are praised/blamed for everything right/wrong. I prefer anonymity as my fate.

My reason for studying both the philosophy and the psychology is to gain a better understanding of the problems we face. Like you say--"how to make them change is the hard part". The more thorough an understanding of a problem one possesses, the easier it becomes to solve. Though the opposite is probably even more true: if you don't understand the problem, you won't be able to solve it.

If that is really your interest you have only one choice. Get involved and do it. Literally become involved in international politics. Presuming you are in the US the only places to start are GW and American Universities in Wash DC. Take every course from those who have actually gotten their hands dirty doing it. After your advanced degree you sign on with the State Department and see how the theory did not prepare you for the practice.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Legislation needs a response tomorrow, the philosophy can take decades.

Legislation doesn't always solve the problem, and, even if it does, they are generally more effective methods. Jumping to solutions often creates more problems than it solves. This is why I like science and philosophy: they are slow but thorough. As a side note, philosophy would be rather useless without studies in human behavior to verify or discredit it. You probably already knew that, but that's a big reason why I don't look at just the philosophy.

Quite true but because of human nature there is always legislation and it is always faster than philosophy can develop principles. So the question is how do we live with that fact. Yes a solution can create more problems than it solves therefore there are checks on legislation. In the US we have the constitution as well as traditional ways of dealing with things.

There have rarely been serious political philosophies in the US. The one at the beginning ran into reality in a generation. There have been certain "temper of the times" such as rugged individualism don't subject such ideas to a scientific test. Our modest attempts at socialism have all backfired badly. Maybe Europeans can make it work but we can't.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There you introduce the concept of group rights in place of individual rights. So far no one has made an acceptable case for group rights. There are endless problems with every proposed concept of group rights. There is no rational basis for excluding women because they are a member of the group of women. We all agree with that more or less. But the response in the west has been to include women because they are members of the group of women. Pardon if I observe there is no change merely a reversal of the response to the group.

And that is the problem with group rights. The idea of group should go away and only individuals should remain. What is given to a group can be taken from a group. And anything that is given is a gift not a right. Individuals have rights. Groups can only have what the leaders of a group agree to. Who voted for the leaders? When did women elect a spokeswomen for women? Never happened. So what are we talking about here? Literally some few women who got media attention and their pet peeves addressed in law.

I have never met all women so I have no idea what that means. I only know the women I have known and none of them were interested in being considered a group or agreed with being the currently popular view of the legal group.

And if that does not make sense to you, please step up and be the spokesrat for men's rights, articulate them, and realize how totally dumb the idea is. So why is is not dumb when talking about women?

Actually, I have done a fair amount of reading about the "Men's Rights Movement". The general idea is that men should not be discriminated against just because they are men. The claim is that men (and women) should not be denied rights granted to other individuals solely because of their sex. That said, the movement primarily deals with combating negative attitudes towards men in popular culture. Their biggest legal focus is on changing the fact that women are almost always granted custody of children in divorce cases--no matter how good the father may be.

That may bring in the money but it is a bogus issue. Been there, done that back in 1979. The truth is women get custody some 95% of the time because 90% of the time it is not contested. In contested cases it was 50/50 win. I won. Now maybe women should win less than 50% of the contested cases but there is no case for it in the statistics.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have no expectation of any sudden change or break through but rather a modest hope that we will continue to develop a world economy that makes trade rather than war a cheaper approach to the same end. Trade is win-win not a zero sum game.

I merely look for a way to make war uneconomical because people will make war for economic gain, period.

War is like atheism, we are just observing its success in progress not contributing to it.

That is correct. However, a lot of individuals do not think economic gain is superior to human life. In addition, the success of atheism as an intellectual stance does not necessarily involve mass death and destruction--unlike war.

I believe we are looking to solve the same problem in different ways. I don't yet know enough about the problem to propose a solution. However, I think your hope/plan for making war not economically favorable is probably the most practical and immediately achievable way to end war.

But as to that being THE problem, it seems to me reality is more solving it for us that us doing anything about it. For example, people talk about world hunger. The world is better fed than it ever was before us and people live longer than ever. And both were simply a consequence of scientific and technological progress not of food charities. Certainly there is still famine in the world occassionally. But a century ago it was something reported in the news and not a damned thing could be done about it.

The same technology makes it possible for the world to be interdependent. And being so makes everyone richer but not in cash. You can look at income stats for the US and find it has barely increased at all in the last 30 years after inflation. But my computer costs half as much and is 500 times faster so I feel richer and I have five of them in my cluster they are so cheap. Income may not have gone up but costs have fallen dramatically. A family night at the movies costs over a $100 and about the same as a year of Netflix. If Netflix had been around way back when a night at the movies would never have become a tradition.

Most of this is coming from international trade. We would be damned fools to screw it up. As soon as our Cold Warriors like Cheney die off we will be rid of the threat of ideological fools. I signed on with DOD to win the Cold War. We did. I am pissed we didn't take our foreign bases and go home. I am pissed NATO was not disbanded after a ceremony marking a job well done on its 50th anniversary.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Judea and Samaria are already part of Israel. There's no "invading" needing to be done.

I mean, you get in your car, you drive, you're in Judea in an hour or so, after starting from somewhere else in Israel.

There comes a time when you expect even the dumbest horse to actually drink the water it has been lead to.

One need only point out that when the Palestinians learn to sing "We shall overcome" demanding equal rights as citizens the hands of the US will be tied and will have to support their human right and civil rights.

At which point the non-Jewish majority will rule Israel via the ballot box.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

The United States, where I assume you live, is equally "unjust". I'm a lesbian, more or less, and when my ex-wife and I wanted to do something that resembled "get married" we had to go to another state. Not that the state we lived in actually recognized our civil union, but we did it anyway. I'm not shooting or blowing up people in protest of my lack of marriage rights.

I'm also a Jew and can't buy alcohol until after noon on Sunday because that's when the government thinks it's okay for Christians to buy alcohol on a Sunday. I used to grocery shop after Sunday morning prayers which ended around 10AM, which meant if I wanted alcohol, I had to make a second trip after noon. That's what =my= government does to =me=. You don't see me blowing up people in protest, do you? Didn't think so.

I have clients in the Eastern Hemisphere, so when it's Monday there, it's Sunday here. But Sunday is a "day of rest", so getting business done when it's Sunday here is nigh on impossible. I'm still not out bombing anyone. I might not wind up with many Christian employees whenever I get around to hiring more people, but that's life -- Sunday is a work day for my company. Still not bombing anyone. I have clients in countries that aren't Christian, so Christian holidays are "work" days for me as well. I have a feeling I'll be hiring Jews, Muslims and Atheists, but not killing people who don't want to work when my customers need my company to be doing work.

LMAO, ok, I hope you were jesting because that just made me laugh. Save the same sex marriage, those have to be the absolute worst examples of persecution I have ever heard outside the comedy channel. I was almost expecting to see a:

She should try getting married under Jewish law. Different religions cannot even get married in Israel it is so backwards and so jewish.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

"Same sex marriage" is a proxy for all of the other rights that same sex couples are denied.

The photo in my avatar is from a Human Rights Campaign dinner. They had some speaker who was trying to get us all motivated to support same sex marriage. There was a gay couple sitting next to me (very carefully cropped and shopped out ...) and just after this speaker started talking about how important same-sex marriage was I turned to one of the guys and said "I'm working on same sex divorce."

Now =that= is an example of persecution. They won't let you get married, then when you =do= get married anyway, they won't let you get divorced.

And if the world would just follow the Torah and the Talmud same sex marriages would be just like any other marriage. The sacred word of the hyphenated god so celebrated homosexuals and lesbians that it advocated their marriages. Thus spake the hypocrite. The Torah for the world and fuck g-d for her.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Here's the thing to keep in mind -- that land area bordered in red? That's what the original partition called to be Jewish land. The Arabs =rejected= those borders. If you don't recognize the land, the body of water in the bottom half, in the middle, is the Dead Sea. The river to the north is the Jordan and the smaller body of water at the top is the Sea of Galilee. The area bordered in black, with the checkered pattern, is a corridor that connects Jerusalem to the coast.

It is difficult to imagine where you found that map as every google for partition maps shows you are lying again.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

If that is really your interest you have only one choice. Get involved and do it. Literally become involved in international politics. Presuming you are in the US the only places to start are GW and American Universities in Wash DC. Take every course from those who have actually gotten their hands dirty doing it. After your advanced degree you sign on with the State Department and see how the theory did not prepare you for the practice.

Seeing as how I think governments are part of the problem, I definitely don't want to work for one.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quite true but because of human nature there is always legislation and it is always faster than philosophy can develop principles. So the question is how do we live with that fact. Yes a solution can create more problems than it solves therefore there are checks on legislation. In the US we have the constitution as well as traditional ways of dealing with things.

What I am really interested in discovering is if "human nature" really necessitates government, legislation, and war. So far, I'm not convinced that it does.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

But as to that being THE problem, it seems to me reality is more solving it for us that us doing anything about it. For example, people talk about world hunger. The world is better fed than it ever was before us and people live longer than ever. And both were simply a consequence of scientific and technological progress not of food charities. Certainly there is still famine in the world occassionally. But a century ago it was something reported in the news and not a damned thing could be done about it.

The same technology makes it possible for the world to be interdependent. And being so makes everyone richer but not in cash. You can look at income stats for the US and find it has barely increased at all in the last 30 years after inflation. But my computer costs half as much and is 500 times faster so I feel richer and I have five of them in my cluster they are so cheap. Income may not have gone up but costs have fallen dramatically. A family night at the movies costs over a $100 and about the same as a year of Netflix. If Netflix had been around way back when a night at the movies would never have become a tradition.

Most of this is coming from international trade. We would be damned fools to screw it up. As soon as our Cold Warriors like Cheney die off we will be rid of the threat of ideological fools. I signed on with DOD to win the Cold War. We did. I am pissed we didn't take our foreign bases and go home. I am pissed NATO was not disbanded after a ceremony marking a job well done on its 50th anniversary.

I am very glad that people's lives all over the world are so improved. I'm also very impressed with how much of that was due to technology. However, I think that understanding "human nature"--why people do the things they do--will also significantly improve everyone's lives.

I am 21. My avatar picture is from when I was 17. I voted for Barack Obama (as well as lots of other people) in 2008. If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I plan on voting for him in 2012. I doubt electing new/different politicians will help; the incentives inherent in the system are the real issue. For example, getting elected often requires a long, costly campaign. The biggest donors to these campaigns are typically special interest groups, corporations, labor unions, etc. who trade their money for the promise of having their political goals forwarded. Therefore, while individual voters are the ones who elect a politician, said politician also has to please the special interest groups that donated if he/she wants to get the money necessary to get re-elected. Basically, a politician may be primarily interested in working for his donors, rather than his voters. Secondly, the way to advance as a politician is to sponsor and/or propose new legislation. In other words, a politician who doesn't think new laws will help--but also wants to keep his job--will work to pass new laws. Thirdly, people are irrational: they often demand that the government protect them without first investigating whether passing new laws will actually help.

Good to know I have a future carding underage cigarette smokers

I think your understanding of the political process is mostly right, with a few minor wrongs thrown in for good measure. Thing is, if you don't =try= you are guaranteed to not succeed. Unless you're trying to succeed at not trying, in which case we have a logical contradiction, but that's beside the point.

Candidates =have= managed to run grass-roots campaigns before, and write-in campaigns have had their share of success as well. The real problem is that the "middle" can go either way, depending on which direction the country as a whole has taken. When I was your age (I'll be 50 soon ...) the Left was WAY far to the left. I mean, hand out money to any poor sap who asked for it, and then some. Since the '80s the entire country has moved to the right, to the point that Clinton came up with the "Welfare to Work" program which was completely counter to the 70's style of "Welfare for the asking".

And then there is role reversal, which we've been in the midst of doing for about 50 years -- the KKK used to be a Democratic Party institution, but most KKK members seem to vote Republican these days. And Barry Goldwater, "Mr. Conservative" himself, could have cared less if gays were in the military. Now keeping gays and lesbians out of =everything= is a major plank in the GOP platform and it's Democrats who love gays and Blacks and all sorts of people they used to lynch.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Why withdraw aid to Israel? We provide aid a lot of countries in the region. Should we withdraw =all= of the aid we provide, or just aid to Israel? And should Israel stop providing the United States with aid as well? Because, you see, Israel isn't a stupid country.

I am generally opposed to governments providing foreign aid. I believe that money would be better spent in trading with said countries. So yes, I think the US government should stop all of its foreign aid, and I think the Israeli government should too. I do not think governments should spend their taxpayers' money on things that their taxpayers do not support. I do not think people should be forced to spend their money on things they wouldn't voluntarily spend it on otherwise. However, I am definitely not to trade between the US and Israel or individuals donating their money to either country.

Having good relations with other countries is in our best interests. It's why that whole mess about "treaties" is in the Constitution.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Judea and Samaria are already part of Israel. There's no "invading" needing to be done.

I mean, you get in your car, you drive, you're in Judea in an hour or so, after starting from somewhere else in Israel.

Huh? If they're already part of Israel, why would they need to be annexed? (sorry if this is a stupid question)

Because they were captured from Jordan the last time Jordan attacked us. During the war in 1948, that's land Jordan took. Then we took it back

We still need to come up with some resolution to the partition plan that the Arabs rejected and right now a "Two State Solution" seems to be the way things are going. That means some amount of Judea and Samaria, land that was part of the United Kingdom 3,500 years ago, will need to be transferred to whatever government the Arabs can put together. My comment about annexing the land is more about admitting that the Arabs will =never= manage to get a workable government together.

blacklight915 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ALL of Eretz Yisrael use to be livable. Funny how the Romans run us out and parts stop being livable ...

Haven't all those people been dead for close to 2000 years? I don't see how you could possibly have more in common with them than with anyone alive now...

My parents are both dead and I assure you I have more in common with my parents that I do with you =or= your parents.

blacklight915 wrote:

Plus, I really think you're stretching things a little: if people abandoned Las Vegas it would eventually become a desert again too...

It wasn't "abandoned".

I hate to ask =this= question, but do you know anything about the history of the Middle East before about the time you were born?

blacklight915 wrote:

I don't doubt that somethings along those lines happened; I just think that attributing the cause to magic is rather...unscientific.

There's really no magic required at all. This is a common misconception Atheists have about religion. You're always making fun of things as needing "magic" when all they might need is human nature, or a persistent belief that the Land is ours and always will be ours and was given to us by G-d -- even if G-d doesn't exist. G-d doesn't even have to =exist= for what I described to happen.

To the Greeks, Romans, Christians and Muslims it was just land they stole from us. To us, it's Home Sweet Home. If that were the case, do you think the original inhabitants would be willing to put in more effort to take care of Home Sweet Home than the invaders? Do you think we'd pay the people who stole it outrageous sums of money to buy it back, then drain swamps and build an entire new country where sand dunes once were? Which part of loving ones homeland requires that G-d exist or that magic happen?

Of course, I take this as proof of G-d's existence. But then, I take the entire Universe as proof of G-d's existence ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Here's the thing to keep in mind -- that land area bordered in red? That's what the original partition called to be Jewish land. The Arabs =rejected= those borders. If you don't recognize the land, the body of water in the bottom half, in the middle, is the Dead Sea. The river to the north is the Jordan and the smaller body of water at the top is the Sea of Galilee. The area bordered in black, with the checkered pattern, is a corridor that connects Jerusalem to the coast.

It is difficult to imagine where you found that map as every google for partition maps shows you are lying again.

It the partition map from ... The Royal Commission's Partition Plan.

And no, it's very much a real map and was rejected by the Arabs the same as every other partitioning plan. Not that you can't actually figure out where the map came from since it =says= where it came from in the 'img' tag for the image.

I don't know who told you all the lies that have turned you into a hate-filled bigot, but I assure you they really are lies. The Arabs really have had one goal in mind -- driving every single last Jew in the Middle East into the Sea -- since the time of the Islamic conquests. That idiotic objective has cost them more human lives and suffering than just about anything =other= than running around conquering land.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

I think your understanding of the political process is mostly right, with a few minor wrongs thrown in for good measure. Thing is, if you don't =try= you are guaranteed to not succeed. Unless you're trying to succeed at not trying, in which case we have a logical contradiction, but that's beside the point.

The problem is that the mere act of voting asserts that you think your opinion is good enough that it should be forced on others--whether they agree with it or not. Since I don't like forcing people to do things, I am also hesitant to vote--even if I truly think the politician I'm voting for is the best candidate.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Having good relations with other countries is in our best interests. It's why that whole mess about "treaties" is in the Constitution.

Yes, and that's why I mentioned that I support unrestricted free trade. People in one country trading goods and money with people in another country helps maintain good relations. Since both countries are set to benefit from this cooperation, they are far less likely to want to attack each other.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

There's really no magic required at all. This is a common misconception Atheists have about religion. You're always making fun of things as needing "magic" when all they might need is human nature, or a persistent belief that the Land is ours and always will be ours and was given to us by G-d -- even if G-d doesn't exist. G-d doesn't even have to =exist= for what I described to happen.

To the Greeks, Romans, Christians and Muslims it was just land they stole from us. To us, it's Home Sweet Home. If that were the case, do you think the original inhabitants would be willing to put in more effort to take care of Home Sweet Home than the invaders? Do you think we'd pay the people who stole it outrageous sums of money to buy it back, then drain swamps and build an entire new country where sand dunes once were? Which part of loving ones homeland requires that G-d exist or that magic happen?

Of course, I take this as proof of G-d's existence. But then, I take the entire Universe as proof of G-d's existence ...

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: since God isn't required to explain those events, I don't think those events are proof of God's existence.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

My parents are both dead and I assure you I have more in common with my parents that I do with you =or= your parents.

You're parents weren't alive 2000 years ago. Do you really think you have more in common with Jews who lived 2000 years ago than with people who are alive now?

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I hate to ask =this= question, but do you know anything about the history of the Middle East before about the time you were born?

Well I definitely know something about it, probably not too much though. Also, I've already stated several times in this thread that I am not that knowledgeable about the Israel conflict. That is why I'm talking with people who are knowledgeable about it.

Of course, I take this as proof of G-d's existence. But then, I take the entire Universe as proof of G-d's existence ...

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: since God isn't required to explain those events, I don't think those events are proof of God's existence.

Having grown up in an environment where there was a lot of "physics" and a lot of "metaphysics", I'm convinced that both are equally "real". Not like some sort of "god of the gaps", but in the sense that there is no gap.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

Of course, I take this as proof of G-d's existence. But then, I take the entire Universe as proof of G-d's existence ...

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: since God isn't required to explain those events, I don't think those events are proof of God's existence.

Having grown up in an environment where there was a lot of "physics" and a lot of "metaphysics", I'm convinced that both are equally "real". Not like some sort of "god of the gaps", but in the sense that there is no gap.

You're parents weren't alive 2000 years ago. Do you really think you have more in common with Jews who lived 2000 years ago than with people who are alive now?

BINGO,

This is what Furry, and most humans don't get. Proxy of tradition, or label or race, is a STUPID, reason to side with any other human.

She agrees with me in fighting the mindset of the right wing economics. But ignores the Jews in Israel who moronically deface an ice cream shop because licking ice cream in public is sexual.

The only thing I have in common with Beyond Saving is lack of belief. I am not going to side with an atheist merely because they claim to be an atheist. I will only side with another atheists on ONE THING, gods do not exist. But that does not mean I will side with them on economics, or politics or "tradition".

Seeking like minded people is what all humans do, including atheists. But when we put labels above our common existence, we create division.

Humans are on an evolutionary scale social. But when we put short cut labels above our common existence, we needlessly take the focus off what we all have in common.

We all want food. We all want shelter. We all want a means of survival. We all want love from our family and friends. And we all like to bitch when we don't like something.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37